Select Page

U.S. Government Regulations on Cell Tower Radiation

May 22, 2024

 

The US government FCC limits allow very high levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the air compared to numerous governments which have set limits far more stringent than U.S. limits for the maximum permissible RF levels allowed in the air from cell towers and base station antennas, especially in areas considered “sensitive” such as home and school.  

Source for the image with wireless radio frequency limits: Australia China, Greece,ICNIRP, Italy, India, Japan, Switzerland, United States 

The US not only has among the most lenient RF limits worldwide, but in addition the US has zero measuring or monitoring of ambient environmental RF limits. In contrast, many other governments regularly measure RF levels, monitor increases over time and post RF compliance reports by telecommunications companies. Countries with transparant programs include France, Australia,  Austria,  Brussels Belgium, Switzerland, India, Israel, United Kingdom, Thailand, Croatia, Lithuania, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Greece, Turkey,  French Polynesia, Senegal,Monaco, Bhuton,  Gibraltar,  Bulgaria, Tunisia, China, Bahrain, Norway , Brazil, Malta, Ireland, Romania. France even has 5G monitoring stations, Australia Telco also posts RF at ACMA EME Checker 

Numerous countries have prohibitions for telecommunications cell towers, and base station antennas on school property. 

Examples of countries that restrict cell towers at schools

 

Within countries, many states/regions have cell tower prohibitions. 

 

Many countries de facto prohibit towers on school property because the country has strict limits for RF environmental exposures in “sensitive areas.”  Sensitive areas are generally defined as locations where more vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly and/or medically vulnerable,  exist. The locations are schools, hospitals and nursing homes depending on the countries definition. 

The US defunded bio-effects research activities decades ago.

Decades ago, the US EPA and FCC measured RF levels in various cities across the country. However the last report on such measurements was issued by the EPA in 1986.  Despite a complete lack of measuring or monitoring program, the U.S. FCC is green-lighting wireless proliferation and RF levels in the U.S. have rapidly increased.  A 2018 multi-country study found ambient RF measurements in Los Angeles, California are now 70 times higher than levels measured in the City in the late ‘70s, as part of a twelve-city study by the FCC and EPA.

Scientists are calling for protections.

Hundreds of scientists from leading research institutions and medical practitioners have called upon governments, regulatory bodies, and wireless companies to reduce public exposure to wireless radiation, especially for children who are more vulnerable due to their developing physiology and their longer expected period of exposure.

U.S. RF exposure regulations have not changed since they were implemented 28 years ago by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Nor has the FCC undertaken a full and comprehensive scientific review of those regulations.  

An enormous body of peer-reviewed, independent scientific research has been published in recent years linking human and animal wireless exposures to a myriad of serious health impacts from cancer to memory, brain development, endocrine system, thyroid, testosterone, reproduction, and DNA/genetic damage.,  Additionally, recently published reviews document evidence of RF radiation’s  negative impacts to wildlife, plants, and trees, and recommend RF mitigation measures.  

Scientific groups and medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have issued recommendations to reduce children’s exposure because RF radiation penetrates deeper in children’s brains and bodies, and their rapidly developing brains are more more susceptible to adverse health impacts. Lawsuits have alleged health damages from the wireless emissions, and international  court cases have settled with compensation.

As noted above, the DC Circuit, in EHT, et al. v  FCC , found the FCC to have inadequately addressed the issue of children’s vulnerability. This issue had been highlighted in repeated letters from the American Academy of Pediatrics calling for RF limits to be updated: 

Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes. 

Numerous published research studies have linked negative health effects to exposures occurring well below the FCC limits and issued science-based recommendations to significantly strengthen RF limits so that they adequately protect against the biological impacts documented in the research. As an example, Lai and Levitt’s review of 112 low-intensity studies found that biological effects of RFR could occur at a median specific absorption rate (0.0165 W/kg), far lower than the “fundamentally flawed” and “insupportable” FCC limits. In 2011, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) designated wireless RF radiation as a class 2 B “possible” carcinogen. Many scientists state that additional studies have corroborated the association, and they conclude the current evidence base is robust enough to determine that RF is now at least a probable, if not proven, human carcinogen.

Published analysis of the $30 million NIH’s National Toxicology Program animal study concluded that U.S. government FCC limits should be lowered by 200 to 400 times to protect children according to current risk assessment guidelines. In addition to brain cancer, Yale research funded by the American Cancer Society found thyroid cancer to be associated with higher hours of cell phone use in people with genetic susceptibility. Many scientists state that evidence of the link between cancer and RF is robust enough to say that RF is now at least a probable, if not proven human carcinogen.

Chris Portier, PhD, former Director of the U.S. National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, who served on the WHO/IARC panel, submitted a comprehensive review of the scientific research in a major cell phone/brain cancer lawsuit, concluding:

The evidence on an association between cellular phone use and the risk of glioma in adults is quite strong . . . in my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.’

The European Parliament requested a research report, Health Impact of 5G,” that concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility, with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses, and newborns. 

References: