Archive
2 postsHigh-Certainty RF Harms vs. 1996 Rules: Why Prudent Avoidance Is Now the Only Responsible Default
This RF Safe commentary argues that U.S. RF exposure protections remain anchored to “thermal-only” assumptions from the 1990s despite what it describes as newer WHO-commissioned systematic reviews elevating certain animal cancer endpoints and a male fertility endpoint to “high certainty.” It contrasts these claims with a WHO-commissioned review of human observational studies that reportedly found mobile-phone RF exposure is likely not associated with increased risk of several head/brain tumors, arguing that this is often overgeneralized in public messaging. The piece calls for “prudent avoidance,” updates to FCC rules, and highlights legal and policy constraints such as federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act and a 2021 D.C. Circuit decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for retaining its RF limits without adequate explanation.
Determining the relationship between mobile phone network signal strength and RF-EMF exposure: protocol and pilot study to derive conversion functions
This protocol and pilot study evaluated whether smartphone signal strength indicators can be converted into RF-EMF exposure estimates using derived formulas and regression models. The study reports a positive log-linear association between LTE RSSI and far-field (base station) exposure aggregated by location, while handset-related exposure at the ear and chest during data transmission showed negative log-linear trends with improving signal quality. The authors conclude the ETAIN 5G-Scientist app may support large-scale RF-EMF exposure assessment, but emphasize the need for more data to improve accuracy and address uncertainties in individual measurements.