This PubMed-listed paper argues that the U.S. regulatory framework for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless technologies is outdated, lacks adequate oversight and enforcement, and has not been meaningfully updated since 1996. It contends that FCC exposure limits focus on short-term, high-intensity effects and do not address long-term, low-intensity exposures, with insufficient safeguards for children, pregnancy, and other vulnerable groups. The authors also discuss alleged regulatory capture, gaps in monitoring and compliance, and propose reforms including independent research, updated safety limits, and stronger pre- and post-market surveillance.

An RF Safe commentary argues that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is violating Public Law 90-602 by failing to continuously update radiation-safety standards, asserting that no formal revisions have occurred since the mid-1980s. The post links this alleged inaction to continued public exposure from wireless technologies and calls for renewed long-term research and stricter exposure limits. It also claims the National Toxicology Program (NTP) was shut down in 2024 and references a 2021 court decision criticizing FCC RF rules, urging congressional action and new legislation.

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.

This policy-focused paper contends that U.S. oversight of radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies is outdated and insufficient, with exposure limits and testing approaches not aligned with modern long-term, chronic exposure scenarios.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.