The U.S. FCC Is Asleep At The Switch Regarding RF Safety Standards And Protecting The Public

By Catherine J. Frompovich

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has dropped the ball regarding safety standards for radiofrequency (RF) limits in the United States.  Furthermore, no risk assessment studies have been performed to my knowledge regarding how consumers use RF-emitting devises, e.g., hours on cell phones; working or being exposed to Wi-Fi at work or in school for a good part of their days; all the electronic games and other devices consumers use with no regard as to what harm they are encountering from non-thermal radiation waves.

Below is the chart of International RF Limits which shows the USA is way off beam with regard to exposure limits from wireless transmitters as set by several other countries, including China!

International RF Limits


Radiofrequency (RF) standards set by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission are old, outdated by some thirty or more years, and in serious need of revisiting and revising immediately, if not sooner, in view of all the RFs citizens are exposed to in the USA.   The above chart verifies what other countries’ exposure limits are.  Lichtenstein has .1 microwatt versus the USA with 580 microwatts.  Whoa!  What’s going on and is ICNIRP involved setting those standards?

Here are some specific terms consumers ought to become familiar with in order to understand what’s going on with RFs and why you need to protect yourself from them.

Radiofrequency (RF) spectrum. Although the RF spectrum is formally defined in terms of frequency as extending from 0 to 3000 GHz, for purposes of the FCC’s exposure guidelines, the frequency range of interest in 300 kHz to 100 GHz. [1]

[One gigahertz is one billion hertz or cycles per second]

Specific absorption rate (SAR). A measure of the rate of energy absorbed by (dissipated in) an incremental mass contained in a volume element of dielectric materials such as biological tissues.

SAR is usually expressed in terms of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g).

Guidelines for human exposure to RF fields are based on SAR thresholds where adverse biological effects may occur. When the human body is exposed to an RF field, the SAR experienced is proportional to the squared value of the electric field strength induced in the body. [1]

[Shouldn’t the FCC explain it in better English so consumers could understand tech talk?]

Wavelength (λ). The wavelength (λ) of an electromagnetic wave is related to the frequency (f) and velocity (v) by the expression v = fλ_.. In free space the velocity of an electromagnetic wave is equal to the speed of light, i.e., approximately 3 x 108 m/s. [1]

If humans actually could see microwave radiofrequencies being emitted by cell phones, cell and mast towers, Wi-Fi, DECT phones, some baby monitors, AMI Smart Meters, ZigBee radio transmitters, routers, wireless networks (LAN, HAN, etc.), security systems, CFL light bulbs, and every device which receives and sends data, photos and voice, I don’t think consumers would be as enthralled and as quick to become addicted to them.

A figurative image of microwaves in action I can try to offer is this:  Microwaves streaming similarly to specifically-controlled-range-snowstorms directed from an antenna at a device held by a person or a smart appliance.  However, there are hundreds of thousands – how many people have cell phones and Wi-Fi in public places – if not millions of these individually-directed ‘snowstorms’ at one time – saturating the space and atmosphere around you and which you walk through with non-thermal radiation waves probably adversely affecting body chemistry, especially if you are electromagnetically hypersensitive (EHS), a child on the Autistic Spectrum or someone who may be impacted by the list of health conditions and diseases the American Academy of Environmental Medicine publishes .

Remember, microwaves penetrate buildings and the worse place to encounter them is in your car!  They bounce around like ping-pong balls [2] since you are encased in a metal tube, which can be compared with a microwave oven’s activity.

The 2008 U.S. NAS (National Academy of Sciences) Report found 20 categories of inadequacies, including:

a) Exposure of juveniles, children, pregnant women, and fetuses …for RF fields from base station antennas

c) Multilateral exposures.

d) Multiple frequency exposures.

g) Models for men and women of various heights and for children of various ages.

j) RF exposure in close proximity to metallic adornments and implanted medical devices (IMDs) including metal rim glasses, earrings, and various prostheses (e.g., hearing aids, cochlear implants, cardiac pacemakers, insulin pumps, Deep Brain Stimulators).

k) Sufficiently long exposure and follow‐up to allow for detection of effects that occur with a latency of several years.

l) Lack of information concerning the health effects associated with living in close proximity to base stations.

m) Research that includes children, the elderly, and people with underlying diseases.

n) Research on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes in EEG (electroencephalogram) activity.

o) Lack of information on possible neurophysiologic effects developing during long‐term exposure to RF fields.

p) Studies focusing on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes in cognitive performance functions.

q) Effects of RF exposure to the sensitive biological targets of neural networks.

r) Possible effects of RF exposure on fetal and neonatal development.

s) Possible influences of exposure on the structure and function of the immune system, including prenatal, neonatal, and juvenile exposures.

t) Possible influences of RF exposures on the structure and function of the central nervous system, including prenatal, neonatal, and juvenile exposures.


“Based on the 2008 NAS findings it cannot be asserted that US RF safety policy protects all members of the public from all mechanisms of harm in all exposure scenarios.” — Janet Newton, EMR Policy Institute, testimony to MA Dept. of Public Utilities

Clearly, the above is a most incriminating statement lobbed toward the FCC, whose main job is to protect consumers, not ‘climb in bed’ with the microwave industry and its professional associations.

The FCC maintains an online Consumer Complaint Center at where you may want to register what you think about the FCC’s being 30+ years behind the times on RF safety issues in the USA.

Hat tip to Patricia Burke of the MA MBTA for all she does and shares with EMF/RF researchers.




EMFacts / Wireless Networks

Electro-Smog: The cell-damaging pollution you can’t see

In 2008 the European Parliament concluded, “The limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete.”

Image Credit

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

4 Comments on "The U.S. FCC Is Asleep At The Switch Regarding RF Safety Standards And Protecting The Public"

  1. I registered a complaint with the FCC back in 2004 on their website. I was complaining about cingular wireless. They stated they would get back to me in 30 days. 30 days later I received an email telling me I could go to their website and make a complaint. Government is not useless; it is the enemy of freedom.

  2. California is being fried….. microwaves are being used for weather modification along with other RF exposures making people sick, causing deaths.

  3. It is not only the FCC that is guilty of gross negligence – the Federal Consumer Product Safety agency is also guilty. Each and every cell phone owners manual has hidden somewhere in 4 point print on page 95 or so that the phones were tested at x distance from the head. Therefore in order to use the cell phone properly it must be held at that distance from the head otherwise the FCC emission guidelines can be exceeded. There is no other product I can think of where legislators, regulatory agencies, government health administrators, talking head journalists, et al watch a product used improperly according to safety guidelines (planted firmly against the head) by millions of consumers every day, and turn a blind eye to it. When a city like San Francisco tries to alert the people, they get threatened with a law suit!

    We watch one child do the impossible (get their arm through a crib bed-rail as an example) and all agencies are up in arm and major recalls occur. But millions plant their cell phones against their head, and it is advertised that way too, and all ignore it.

    No I am not a scientist or doctor so you will tell me to shut up. But listen to this former head of Norway and the World Health organization – and try to discredit her
    Dr. Gro Brundtland

    EHS is indeed real.

  4. Asleep at the switch? Or co-conspirators?

Leave a comment