U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms

Abstract

Category: Public Health Policy Tags: wireless radiation, electromagnetic fields, regulatory gaps, public health, FCC policy, children’s health, environmental effects DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583 URL: frontiersin.org Overview The current U.S. regulatory framework governing non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) used in all wireless technology is outdated and lacks adequate protection, oversight, and enforcement. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was given regulatory jurisdiction by the U.S. Congress in 1996 over RFR exposure standards setting even though FCC has no in-house expertise regarding health or environmental effects from RFR. FCC is a licensing/engineering entity that relies on other government agencies for guidance on ambient exposures and devices. However, all relevant civilian public health and environmental agencies have been defunded from non-ionizing radiation research activities and oversight. Thus, current regulations have remained unchanged since 1996. - Human exposure limits are designed to protect against short-term high-intensity effects, not today's long-term chronic low-intensity exposures. - Scientific evidence indicates that children's thinner skulls, unique physiology, and more conductive tissues result in significantly higher RFR absorption rates deeper into critical brain regions, which are still in development and thus more sensitive to environmental insults. - Current policies offer no safeguards for children, pregnancy, or vulnerable populations. - Growing research also indicates risks to wildlife, especially pollinators. In 2021, a U.S. federal court mandated that the FCC show proper review of growing scientific evidence, after a cursory FCC re-approval of limits in 2019, but FCC has yet to respond. This paper explores regulatory infrastructure deficiencies, including the absence of monitoring/oversight, premarket safety testing, post-market surveillance, emissions compliance/enforcement, occupational safety, and wildlife protection. - Compliance tests for cell phones do not reflect real-world consumer use and can therefore camouflage exposures that exceed even FCC's outdated limits. - Other countries enforce stricter limits, robust monitoring, transparency measures, compliance programs, and additional policies to protect children. Also discussed is the chronic revolving door between FCC leadership and the wireless industry, resulting in a state of regulatory capture. Policy recommendations for common-sense reforms are made for reinvigorating independent research, developing science-based safety limits, ensuring pre- and post-market surveillance, and improving oversight/enforcement, as well as implementing risk mitigation to reduce exposures to children, vulnerable groups, and wildlife. Findings The review reveals a profound failure of governance in the U.S. regarding wireless technologies. U.S. regulatory oversight has not kept pace with rapidly advancing technology, resulting in outdated, fragmented, and industry-influenced frameworks. Safety limits are not based on current science, and testing methods are obsolete and incomplete. There is a near-total absence of civilian research, oversight, and enforcement. - The lack of a comprehensive occupational RFR/EMF program, exposure research, and medical surveillance represents a serious public health gap. - Deflection and abdication of responsibility have led to stagnant regulations based only on short-term exposure risks, without reconciling current realities of long-term, cumulative, and complex exposures. - No policies exist in the U.S. for long-term, non-thermal exposure risks, echoing an unaddressed warning from the EPA over two decades ago. Conclusion To rectify the situation, government oversight must balance industry power through transparency and robust evidence-based evaluation, free from industry influence. Prevention is key to public health, and a risk mitigation approach is required, especially given the documented links between electromagnetic field exposure and health concerns for children, vulnerable groups, workers, and the environment. Advancing regulatory reforms is both a governance necessity and an ethical imperative, as ignoring the growing scientific evidence on non-thermal impacts could result in severe, possibly irreversible, consequences for health, economics, productivity, education, and the environment. The U.S. should lead in technology safety by prioritizing vulnerable populations and environmental protection.

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

The paper argues that U.S. FCC radiofrequency radiation exposure regulations are outdated (unchanged since 1996), focused on short-term high-intensity effects, and lack adequate monitoring, premarket testing, post-market surveillance, compliance/enforcement, occupational programs, and wildlife protections. It states that evidence indicates higher RF absorption in children and that growing research indicates risks to wildlife, and it proposes reforms to strengthen independent research and science-based safety limits and oversight.

Outcomes measured

• public health protection/regulatory adequacy
• children’s RF absorption (discussed)
• occupational safety/medical surveillance (policy gap)
• environmental/wildlife effects (discussed)

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.55)
  Discusses exposure limits/safety standards and critiques adequacy of current regulatory framework.
• occupational-exposure (0.6)
  Highlights absence of a comprehensive occupational RFR/EMF program and medical surveillance as a public health gap.
• 5g-policy (0.35)
  Addresses wireless technologies broadly and U.S. regulatory policy gaps; specific generations (e.g., 5G) are not explicitly detailed in the abstract.

{
    "study_type": "policy",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "wireless technology (general)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": "long-term chronic low-intensity exposures (discussed)"
    },
    "population": "U.S. public; emphasis on children, pregnancy/vulnerable populations, workers, and wildlife (pollinators)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "public health protection/regulatory adequacy",
        "children’s RF absorption (discussed)",
        "occupational safety/medical surveillance (policy gap)",
        "environmental/wildlife effects (discussed)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "The paper argues that U.S. FCC radiofrequency radiation exposure regulations are outdated (unchanged since 1996), focused on short-term high-intensity effects, and lack adequate monitoring, premarket testing, post-market surveillance, compliance/enforcement, occupational programs, and wildlife protections. It states that evidence indicates higher RF absorption in children and that growing research indicates risks to wildlife, and it proposes reforms to strengthen independent research and science-based safety limits and oversight.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "wireless radiation",
        "radiofrequency radiation",
        "electromagnetic fields",
        "FCC",
        "regulatory gaps",
        "public health policy",
        "children",
        "occupational exposure",
        "wildlife",
        "non-thermal effects",
        "regulatory capture"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.5500000000000000444089209850062616169452667236328125,
            "reason": "Discusses exposure limits/safety standards and critiques adequacy of current regulatory framework."
        },
        {
            "slug": "occupational-exposure",
            "weight": 0.59999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
            "reason": "Highlights absence of a comprehensive occupational RFR/EMF program and medical surveillance as a public health gap."
        },
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.34999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
            "reason": "Addresses wireless technologies broadly and U.S. regulatory policy gaps; specific generations (e.g., 5G) are not explicitly detailed in the abstract."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.