An RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) radiation governance is structurally flawed due to outdated FCC exposure limits, misaligned agency responsibilities, reduced federal research activity, and federal preemption that limits local action. It promotes the site’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework as a proposed non-thermal mechanism for RF/ELF bioeffects and cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) as challenging a thermal-only basis for limits. The piece also discusses policy reforms, including a proposed “Clean Ether Act” and increased use of alternatives such as Li‑Fi, while noting that mainstream bodies (e.g., FDA, ICNIRP) do not consider non-thermal harms established.

This RF Safe article argues that Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) functions as a federal “gag clause” that prevents state and local governments from considering health or environmental effects of RF emissions when making wireless facility siting decisions, so long as FCC exposure limits are met. It contends this preemption suppresses public-health arguments in local hearings and court challenges and frames the provision as constitutionally problematic under the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. The piece proposes a legal strategy centered on Fifth Amendment takings claims, analogizing RF exposure to other intangible intrusions (e.g., noise, smoke) discussed in past U.S. Supreme Court cases.

RF Safe’s “Executive Summary” argues that non-thermal radiofrequency/microwave exposures from modern wireless technologies can disrupt biological processes, proposing ion-channel voltage-sensor interference as a key mechanism leading to oxidative stress and inflammation. It cites animal studies (NTP and Ramazzini) and claims a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review found “high certainty” evidence of increased cancer in animals, and it points to epidemiological trends as suggestive. The piece also criticizes U.S. regulation as focused on thermal effects, highlighting FCC limits dating to 1996 and referencing a 2021 U.S. court ruling that faulted the FCC for not addressing non-thermal evidence.

RF Safe argues that U.S. RF exposure limits remain based on avoiding short-term heating (“thermal-only”) effects and have not been meaningfully updated since the FCC’s 1996 guidelines. The piece links this regulatory approach to community concerns about cell towers near schools, citing reported cancer clusters and claiming that compliance with FCC limits may not equate to safety. It also highlights Telecommunications Act Section 704 as limiting local opposition to tower siting on health or environmental grounds.

RF Safe publishes an advocacy guide arguing that current wireless RF/MW exposure limits are “thermal-only,” outdated since 1996, and insufficient to address claimed non-thermal biological effects from pulsed/modulated signals. The guide summarizes mechanistic arguments (e.g., voltage-gated ion channel timing disruption), cites animal studies and reviews it says link RF exposure to cancer and other harms, and calls for regulatory and technological reforms (including Li‑Fi) plus exposure-reduction strategies. The piece frames the issue as urgent and precautionary, presenting its synthesis as evidence-grounded but primarily as advocacy rather than a single new study.

RF Safe argues that an FDA-authorized therapeutic radiofrequency device (TheraBionic P1) demonstrates biologically meaningful “non-thermal” RF effects, and contrasts this with consumer wireless regulation that it says is based primarily on heating (SAR) limits set in 1996. The post frames this as a regulatory and legal gap, citing the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act and Telecommunications Act Section 704 as factors limiting local and public-health oversight. It also references several epidemiology and animal studies (e.g., Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, IARC 2011 classification, and the U.S. NTP rodent studies) to support the claim that non-thermal effects and health risks warrant stronger scrutiny, though the article’s presentation is advocacy-oriented.

This policy-focused paper contends that U.S. oversight of radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies is outdated and insufficient, with exposure limits and testing approaches not aligned with modern long-term, chronic exposure scenarios. It emphasizes gaps in protections for children, pregnancy, vulnerable populations, workers, and wildlife, and describes limited monitoring, research, and enforcement capacity. The author proposes reforms to improve independent research, science-based limits, surveillance, and regulatory transparency.

This review discusses how increasing ambient nonionizing EMF (0–300 GHz), particularly RF from modern wireless technologies and satellites, may affect flora and fauna at ecosystem levels. It states that many nonhuman species rely on electro/magneto-reception and that even low-intensity EMF exposures are capable of disrupting critical biological functions and behaviors. The authors conclude that current exposure standards focus on human health and recommend policy reforms and mitigation measures to protect wildlife and ecosystems.

This narrative review discusses proposed non-thermal mechanisms by which chronic, low-intensity RF-EMR from ubiquitous wireless sources may affect male reproductive health. It highlights oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired testosterone synthesis/steroidogenesis, and declines in sperm quality as reported outcomes. The authors argue that current SAR/thermal-based guidelines may not capture these endpoints and call for updated standards and precautionary measures.

This article summarizes a webinar series and frames pesticides and wireless radiation as concurrent environmental health crises affecting ecosystems and public health. It asserts that evidence is building for adverse effects of EMF/wireless radiation in humans, animals, and bees, including “high-certainty links” between RF radiation and tumors in brain and heart nerves. It also suggests potential synergy between chemical and EMF exposures impacting bee hive productivity and argues for precautionary policy and stronger exposure guidelines.

This review discusses the rapid deployment of 5G and the associated debate about potential human health impacts from EMF exposure, particularly at 3.5–26 GHz including millimeter waves. It emphasizes limited published studies in these exposure ranges and highlights EU-funded initiatives and research consortia aimed at closing knowledge gaps. The authors state that guidelines are generally considered adequate at present, but argue that uncertainties—especially regarding long-term exposure—support continued research and precautionary approaches.

This policy brief focuses on how RF-EMF exposure should be quantified in health research, emphasizing the role of near-field sources and proposing cumulative dose (J/kg/day) as a health-relevant metric. It reports mean cumulative dose estimates of 0.29 J/kg/day for the whole body and 0.81 J/kg/day for the brain. The brief notes established RF-EMF effects (heating, microwave hearing under highly pulsed radiation, and stimulation) and discusses indications of biological effects below thermal thresholds, while stating that improved metrics do not by themselves confirm harm.

This letter critiques the WHO-sponsored systematic review by Karipidis et al. (2024) on RF-EMF exposure and cancer risk. The authors argue the review has serious methodological and interpretative flaws, including issues with study selection and data analysis. They contend that the review’s conclusion of "no clear evidence" may be misleading and should not be used as a basis for health policy or safety guidelines.