Why you Cannot Rely on Government EMF Safety Standards to Keep you Safe.

The government agency responsible for setting EMF safety standards is the Federal Communications Commision (FCC). Our current standards for Radio Frequency (RF) emissions (like what our phone emits) were created in 1996. That was over a quarter century ago - Google was still a research project at Stanford University and less than 20% of the population owned a cell phone. When the guidelines were created children didn’t use cell phones, cell phone antenna tower exposure was rare, and no one had a tablet in their lap or a smart meter outside their bedroom wall. Our world has changed so drastically in ways we couldn’t even imagine back then so logically as things changed and our exposure grew, the guidelines protecting us should have also evolved. Well guess what, that didn’t happen, and even worse it turns out these very old EMF safety standards have a fundamental flaw.

The fundamental flaw in the EMF safety standards lies in the assumption that damage to us humans is ONLY done by a thermal increase (heating of tissue). The safety standards use Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) which has a unit of Watts/Kilogram (W/Kg) and is “usually expressed as the heat absorbed by the tissue.” (A). If you’re thinking meat in a microwave oven, you wouldn’t be that far off. This basically means how much power (Watts) can be absorbed per (kilogram) of tissue before a rise in temperature happens that is considered unsafe. The US limit is 1.6 W/Kg.

The problem with using SAR is that this assumes biological damage only occurs from heating. Here lies the fundamental flaw of our safety standards. Thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies have shown biological effects from RF exposure far below heating.

US government agencies and officials have requested the FCC revisit its 1996 EMF Safety Standards. One such agency is the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). In 2016 a GAO report recommend the "FCC should formally reassess and, if appropriate, change its current RF energy exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements.

“I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that have approached the weight of evidence that we’re seeing with this. Clearly there is something here.’ Martin Halper, EPA Director of Analysis and Support 

So, with the current safety standards being issued for a world and technology that existed over 25 years ago and the safety standards being fundamentally flawed because it’s based on thermal heating, what did the FCC do? In 2019 it decided to issue a final order declining to undertake any of the changes contemplated in its 2013 notice of inquiry. But wait I’m getting a little ahead of myself. The FCC opened a notice of inquiry in 2013 to request comments on whether the FCC should modify its guidelines stating it was doing so “in response to changes in the ubiquity of wireless devices and in scientific standards since 1996.”

I know this is getting a little dry but stick with me, good news is coming. Basically, what happened is the FCC acknowledged the world we live in now looks nothing like 1996 (“changes in the ubiquity”), asked for input, got a lot of input from members of the scientific community stating the standards are inadequate, decided it didn’t like the input (what the science was saying) so it issued a final order to say it was going to do nothing and not update its fundamentally flawed guidelines.

Environmental Health Trust (EHT) Sues the FCC over its Decision not to Re-evaluate EMF Safety Standards and Wins!

This prompted a historic lawsuit. Environmental Health Trust (EHT) sued the FCC (EHT et al. v. the FCC) saying the FCC failed to take into consideration hundreds of scientific studies submitted to the agency. The court agreed and ruled against the FCC!  I told you good news was coming! The court ruled that the FCC decision to retain its 1996 EMF safety standards was “arbitrary and capricious” and “failed to respond to record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below FCC current limits may cause negative health effects…”.

Now you might be asking yourself why isn't a government agency assigned with setting safety standards setting safe standards. Would it shock you to learn that many of the positions within the FCC including the Commissioner are held by people who were once telecommunication lobbyist or employed by the telecommunications industry. Thats like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup (Really, you only had ten chickens, not eleven!)

If you really want to understand why you cannot rely on government safety standards to keep you safe read more here about Norm Alster's article Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.

Contact me at EMFtrustedPro@gmail.com to schedule your home inspection and start reducing your exposure today.

Disclaimer: Dammit Jim, I am an engineer, not a doctor! The information shared on this website is the result of peer reviewed, scientific literature I have read. This is in no way medical advice. Should you need medical advice, please seek the help of a medical professional.