Groups that argue the government is allowing dangerous levels of RF radiation from cell phones, towers and computers have called on HHS and the FDA to declare that radiation an imminent hazard.

In their petition they allege that the FDA is misleading the public into thinking it has examined the evidence and based its RF exposure limits for humans on a science based conclusion when that is not the case.

The groups said that the rapid rollout of 5G and an effort to bring wireless to classrooms has raised questions about the "near-constant exposure."

Also: D.C. Court Smacks Down FCC Decision to Keep 5G RF Emission Standards

The groups also argue that the FCC's thermal guidelines fail to address "proven biological impacts."

They point out that in a lawsuit filed against the FCC for deciding to keep its RF safety guidelines, a federal court said the FCC has to review the science on RF exposure and biological harm. The FCC has been fighting the RF limits issue on multiple fronts.

That court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said that there may be good reasons not to change the standards, but the FCC did not supply them. "To be clear, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation," the court said. "[W]e merely conclude that the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law."

The basic issue is whether current FCC and FDA standards for safe wireless RF emissions have kept up with the race to 5G and the rise of wireless broadband as the go-to RF access point for millions. ■

August has proved to be RF radiation limits legal challenge month at the FCC as the commission deals with that issue on at least three fronts as it separately works to promote the rollout of 5G transmissions.

Only a few days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in response to a challenge from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Children's Health Defense, remanded back the commission decision not change the RF radiation safety limits for cellular devices (saying the FCC had not sufficiently justified that decision), the FCC this week submitted its brief to the same court on the same general subject in response to another challenge by CHD.

Also Read: D.C. Court Smacks Down FCC Decision to Keep 5G RF Emission Standards

That followed earlier this month the commission's response to a U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, which had asked the FCC for input on the issue of private rights of action and whether in the case of alleged violations of RF emission regulations and ones regarding antenna height and power limits, suits by private individuals are allowed to enforce the Communications Act. (The FCC said no).

The basic issue is whether current FCC and FDA standards for safe wireless RF emissions have kept up with the race to 5G and the rise of wireless broadband as the go-to RF access point for millions.

In the latest FCC entry, the commission Monday (Aug. 23), was responding to a challenge to its decision to extend its prohibition on state and local restrictions that delay antenna replacement to fixed wireless--it had initially applied to TV antennas.

CHD argued that the FCC was deep-sixing all previous zoning requirements and "and depriving persons who are allegedly sensitive to radiofrequency emissions from FCC-authorized equipment of forums to object to the placement of antennas on their neighbors’ properties."

CHD also said the FCC had failed to address RF emission-related objections, an argument it had made in challenging the FCC's decision in 2019 not to modify the RF emission safety limits.

Also Read: FCC Opposes Private Suits Over Alleged Wireless Buildout Rule Violations

The FCC told the D.C. appeals court, which has principal jurisdiction over FCC decisions, that CHD and several other petitioners that joined the challenge did not have have legal standing to do so and, in any event, could not make the case that "the FCC’s modest amendment substantially increases the risk of alleged harm from exposure to radiofrequency emissions when compared to the preexisting rule, or that the injuries to Children’s Health’s organizational interests can be attributed to the rule change."

The FCC points out that the decision leaves the limits unchanged, though of course that is something CHD challenges in its other appeal, and that it was not required in this decision to reevaluate those limits or rebut claims from DHC of harms.

Over 400 medical professionals have told the FCC it was wrong not to update its RF human exposure guidelines to keep up with the science. 

The letter was signed by doctors, both medical and PHDs, nurses and others, but no medical associations and submitted as comment on a recent FCC decision. 

The FCC last December decided not to change its RF emission exposure limits or how it evaluates those limits for mobile device use, resolving a 2013 order and notice of inquiry into the issue.  

Saying it "takes to heart" the FDA's findings that "t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," the commission voted unanimously--with commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel concurring, which is short of a full-throated "aye," to retain the current limits, but to adjust the rules" to ensure the health and safety of workers and consumers of wireless technology, while also clarifying and streamlining rules to reduce regulatory burdens on licensees."  

But in the letter to the FCC, dated June 17, the medical professionals said the FCC "completely ignores the documented adverse health effects that can occur at the FCC’s current radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits, much less those that may occur at the expanded range of frequencies contemplated in the proposed rule."

They said averaging the exposure over time is convenient for manufacturers but not the way people experience exposures. "To our knowledge, there is no scientific basis for the claim that periodic, high-level exposures are not harmful."  

The FCC has decided not to change its RF emission exposure limits or how it evaluates those limits for mobile device use, resolving a 2013 order and notice of inquiry into the issue. 

But it is eliminating service-based exemptions in favor of specific-use exemptions, which could require new evaluations of devices like WiFi routers. 

The FCC said it did not think the exemption change would cause much disruption. "Our actions in this Order will not change these and similarly situated parties’ obligations or burdens because the formula underlying the new rules results in similar exemptions as the old rules," it said. Nonetheless, it will provide a two-year transition period for licensees to figure out if new evaluations are required or they are still exempt from evaluation. 

Saying it "takes to heart" the FDA's findings that "t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," the commission voted unanimously--with commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel concurring, which is short of a full-throated "aye," to retain the current limits, but to adjust the rules" to ensure the health and safety of workers and consumers of wireless technology, while also clarifying and streamlining rules to reduce regulatory burdens on licensees." 

"We take our duty to protect the public from any potential harm due to RF exposure seriously," the FCC said. "Indeed, as noted in the inquiry, our limits for devices held close to the body are more restrictive than other more recently published international limits." 

The FCC is required by law to periodically evaluate the impact of RF devices--these days most prominently smart phones--on quality of the "human environment." 

It heard from those who wanted the limits toughened, and those who thought they should be loosened. 

"Over 1,000 comments or ex parte presentations were filed in the proceeding," the commission said, but suggested most were not helpful in terms of the science of RF exposure. "The vast majority of filings were unscientific, and even the filings that sought to present scientific evidence failed to make a persuasive case for revisiting our existing RF limits," it said. "

Many referenced BioInitiative Report and Building Biology, which the FCC said specified limits millions and even billions of times lower than current FCC limits. 

No device could reliably transmit any usable level of energy by today’s technological standards while meeting those limits," it said, and besides, "there is no scientific evidence in the record that such restrictive limits would produce any tangible benefit to human health, or provide any improvement over current protections against established risks." 

In addition to resolving the notice of inquiry on whether the limits should be changed, the FCC revised its rules to streamline the criteria for exemptions from the FCC's evaluation criteria, changing a service-based exemption to one based on situations where risk is minimal. 

It also sought comment on further proposals on applying exposure limits on future uses of wireless technology, including formalizing an additional limit for localized RF exposure from portable devices operating in high (gigahertz) frequencies, and proposing to extend that to terahertz (ThZ) frequencies, and specific limits on wireless power transfer equipment. 

The commission also denied a petition to reconsider its finding that the out ears (pinnae) "should be treated like other extremities for purposes of determining compliance with our RF emission exposure limits." 

The FCC declined to change its general public specific absorption rate (SAR)-based exemption standard. The WiFi Alliance had contended that the proposed exemption standard was too conservative given the operation of current devices. 

“The FCC decision flies in the face of mounting scientific evidence demonstrating harm," said Devra Davis, president of the Environmental Health Trust, which pushed for more stringent standards. "The U.S. actions run counter to progressive decisions of sophisticated governments that have denoted major resources to evaluating new evidence on the issue and have taken steps to curtail exposures as a result of their findings.”