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.

RF Safe promotes an “Act Now” hub intended to convert EMF safety concerns into policy and regulatory actions, emphasizing accountability and exposure reduction, especially for children. The page outlines five advocacy “levers,” including changing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, pressing the FCC to complete actions following a court remand, and restarting a federal electronic-product radiation program. It frames current RF oversight as outdated and insufficient for modern exposure patterns, and provides scripts to help supporters submit comments and demands into official records.

This RF Safe commentary argues that wireless communications “took a wrong turn” by prioritizing radiofrequency/microwave transmission over light-based approaches, citing Alexander Graham Bell’s 1880 photophone as an alternative model. It suggests that widespread, continuous RF exposure in modern environments is undesirable and proposes light-based, room-scale wireless as more biologically compatible. The piece also speculates about a historical association between Heinrich Hertz’s close-range RF experiments and his later fatal illness, while acknowledging there is no controlled evidence proving causation.

RF Safe argues for a transition from microwave-based wireless (cellular/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) to light-based communications (e.g., Li‑Fi) to reduce indoor RF exposure. The piece claims chronic, low-level RF exposure may pose health risks beyond heating and calls for a precautionary approach, while also criticizing U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks it says limit local control and rely on older, heat-focused assumptions.

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 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.

This RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) exposure policy is outdated, emphasizing that FCC limits adopted in 1996 are based on preventing tissue heating and do not address alleged non-thermal biological effects. It claims responsibility for protecting public health from electronic product radiation was effectively ceded from health agencies to the FCC, and that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act limits local governments from opposing wireless infrastructure on health grounds if FCC limits are met. The piece cites epidemiology, cell studies, and animal studies (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute) to argue that evidence has accumulated and regulation should be updated, but it presents these points in an advocacy framing rather than as a balanced review.

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.