International scientists call on Congress to hold FCC accountable in light of new scientific analysis on cell tower and wireless radiation health risks
May 20, 2026
https://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish/article_145708.shtml
"Berkeley, California -- The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) just sent a scientific letter to U.S. Senate and House leadership and the FCC Commissioner challenging .... that the FCC’s 1996 human exposure limits for the radiofrequency radiation (RF) emitted by cell towers, cell phones, and wireless networks fail to adequately protect the public against cancer and other health effects. ...
“Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the current FCC and ICNIRP limits for cell phones and wireless networks are structurally incapable of protecting human health. We urgently need governments to step up, abandon these obsolete guidelines, and conduct rigorous risk assessments using modern toxicological data,” stated Dr. Melnick.
The scientists warned that if the FCC moves forward with plans to fast-track cell towers and wireless infrastructure by preempting local government control, as outlined in the FCC’s proposed “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (NPRM 25-276), without first updating federal exposure limits to reflect the latest scientific research, Americans would effectively become “test subjects in an uncontrolled national radiation experiment, one conducted without consent, without monitoring, and without updated safety limits.” ....
- Low Exposure: Cell tower antennas are usually mounted high on towers or buildings, and the signals they send out are directed outward and downward. By the time they reach the ground, the energy levels are incredibly low—typically thousands of times below safety limits.
- Health Consensus: Major health organizations, including https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/cell-phones-towers.html&ved=2ahUKEwi3t-e6g9CUAxWkrokEHeErDgcQy_kOegoIAggACAAIDBAD&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw3px93R9lEKVoz9KkxHpFrX&ust=177964689819100 0" data-copy-service-computed-style="font-family: Google Sans, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 500; margin: 0px; text-decoration: underline 1px rgb(26, 13, 171); border-bottom: 0px rgb(26, 13, 171);">Health Canada and the https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html&ved=2ahUKEwi3t-e6g9CUAxWkrokEHeErDgcQy_kOegoIAggACAAIDBAE&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw3px93R9lEKVoz9KkxHpFrX&ust=177964689819100 0" data-copy-service-computed-style="font-family: Google Sans, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 500; margin: 0px; text-decoration: underline 1px rgb(26, 13, 171); border-bottom: 0px rgb(26, 13, 171);">American Cancer Society, state there is no strong evidence that living near a cell tower increases your risk of cancer or other health issues.
- The Radiation Type: This technology uses non-ionizing radiation. Unlike X-rays (which are ionizing and can damage DNA directly), non-ionizing radiation lacks the energy to strip electrons from atoms or damage DNA. The only biological effect observed at very high, unnatural levels is tissue heating. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Direct Proximity: Cell phones emit RF energy directly into your hand, head, and body when making calls or using data. Because they are so close, your body absorbs much more energy from your phone than it ever would from a distant tower.
- The "Possibly Carcinogenic" Label: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies RF radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen. This classification means there is limited evidence showing a potential link to a rare type of brain cancer (glioma) in heavy cell phone users, but it is not definitively proven.
- Pacemakers: Cell phones can potentially interfere with sensitive medical devices like cardiac pacemakers if kept in a shirt pocket too close to the device. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Use the speakerphone or hands-free wired/Bluetooth earpieces rather than holding the device against your ear.
- Text instead of calling when possible.
- Keep the phone away from your body by using a belt clip or carrying it in a bag or purse.
- Avoid keeping your phone directly next to your pillow while you sleep; put it on airplane mode or place it across the room. [1, 2]
Also, it is like smoking/drugs, when you are an addict, you don't care about bad for you.
There are disclaimers/warnings about microwave radiation(the part of the spectrum that this stuff operates at) in every phone and ear bluetooth things that warn you about the radiation. You can read that and make your own decisions.
Who reads that or cares! The companies warn you just like the government requires the tobacco companies to warn you of the dangers of smoking and it's your choice to ignore it, as I said, when you are addicted you don't care. No one will ditch the phone for a home phone landline that you grew up with.
I will never have a cell phone, smartphone, or ever put those bluetooth things in my ears and what I get from a distant cell tower is nothing compared to that. One suggestion is to keep it away from your body when carrying it? How about just not having it with you? Turn it off. What? Am I speaking another language! But there must be something to the radiation thing if the companies themselves warn you about using these safely.
@mark Excerpts from Letter ICBE-EMF sent to Senate and House leadership and FCC, May 14, 2026:
c. 9 "A rapidly expanding body of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that RF radiation from wireless technologies can produce harmful effects at levels far below current FCC limits, especially with chronic exposure.
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17
...RF radiation exposure limits should be based on scientific evidence, not assumptions. Most recently, two of our Commissioners, Dr. Ronald L. Melnick, a retired senior toxicologist who worked at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for 28 years, and Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, analyzed the data on the increased tumors found in the animal studies of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Italian Ramazzini Institute (RI) 18,19 using health risk assessment procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The analysis, published in the journal Environmental Health, found that FCC limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times to protect against an excess cancer risk of one per 100,000, the level typically used by the EPA to determine safety limits for environmental hazards. 20
Notably, the same types of tumors reported in the NTP and RI animal studies have also been observed in human studies adding confidence that the associations are real.
21,22
In addition, FCC limits were found to be 8 to 24 times too high to protect against risks related to male reproductive outcomes, such as decreased sperm count, vitality, and testosterone levels. In short, U.S. exposure limits for wireless radiation cannot be relied upon to protect public safety.
We caution that increasing the density of cell towers and wireless networks will come at a serious cost to public health and the environment.
Further, studies of people living near cell towers in over twenty countries have found various effects, ranging from increased biomarkers of DNA damage, oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, sleep disturbance....."
There's a point there, the towers are getting more and more numerous and unlike just one or two over a large area there's now many in an area so the collective radiation is multiplied.
I can avoid smartphones and bluetooth but what about the towers everywhere also?
Why does there have to be so many in a given area when one for every specified area would work. But it has to start with us, You can't really look at cell towers while you(general term) are addicted to cell phones and they are part of your body. The end user is consenting to the risks. But what about me, I don't consent to the risk and that has to be considered in the safe limits. I don't know if the Canadian standards are different from the FCC standards but you raise a good point about the numbers of them in certain areas.
The problem, some studies show this others show that. My first post showed that the cell tower radiation is 1000s of times less than the max safe amount unless you stand right beside the radiating elements and much more is from your personal use of smartphones.
I still say, you can't be worried about cell towers when you(general term) on a personal level live with these things on your person all the time. If I go to a crowded grocery store and there's hundreds of people around me with smartphones what about the cumulative amounts of radiation I am getting from all of this? It's like a cell tower in the center of the store! I have to get out in the country and live away from highly populated areas! They are all over the place in North York in Toronto. But I think the dramatizations of the harm of these things by posters and authors writing articles, based on my past experiences with getting info from articles in papers is exaggerated.
@mark I think a lot of the blowback is coming from the deployment of the new 6G expansion or something.. I'm not particularly familiar with what's going on, but just saying it seems to be part of it.
Yeah, who are you supposed to believe? This study, that study, this expert vs that expert, I suppose the media powers decide which is to be debunked.
Armchair speculation suggest increasing the number of transmitters by intertwining them in a web throughout the populated areas while broadcasting even higher frequency and power radio signals consistently 24/7 ... Naw, probably has no affect on us.
What are we going to do, put a commissioner in jail or send them to the gallows? Unless that happens I cannot see anyone being held to account.