Science vs. FCC

Bio-effects and health effects are two of the most hotly contended topics in the wireless communications arena. The line in the sand is drawn between the independent biological scientists, the over 25,000 peer-reviewed studies, white papers, published articles, approximately 10,000 classified studies, the National Toxicology Program, and the BioInitiative Report vs the FCC, industry scientists, electrical, engineering bodies and telecoms. 

The FCC and associated engineers base their outcomes on thermal effects or ionizing radiation, where the biological studies base their findings on non-thermal effects or non-ionizing radiation. The FCC uses old analog signals averaged over time for Maximum Permissible Exposure to determine their safety guidelines, where scientists used Peak, digital, pulsed, modulated signals we currently use, where the greatest biological effects are activated. Where Analog is a continuous signal, Digital has “dead” zones and then will suddenly spike into a peak and recede again, thousands to millions of times a second. The FCC uses outdated and unrelated signals as the basis for their decisions, where scientists use the most current signals deployed in today’s technology to study their biological impact.

Local officials are preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to stop the installation of any cell towers, macro or incorrectly branded “small cell facilities”, based on health effects or environmental effects.  While environmental effects studies are growing in number, the science on the bio and health effects of Radio Frequency Radiation has long been established since the 1950’s. 

A brief and excellent history and scientific review on radio wave sickness is on the site: httpss://