Historically and factually—why calling the FCC’s move an “update” misses the point, and why the thermal-only frame was never scientifically exclusive in the first place.
In 1996 the FCC did not create a fresh health standard; it adopted exposure limits largely from ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (which superseded the 1982 edition) and NCRP-86 (1986), and wrote them into law. The agency’s own rulemaking and the Federal Register say so explicitly. The limits were built around thermal thresholds (whole-body SAR and localized SAR) rather than a survey of non-thermal biology. FCC TransitionGovInfo
That same year, Section 704 of the Telecom Act preempted cities and states from denying sites “on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions” if they met the FCC limits. In practice, this locked thermal-only assumptions into local siting law. Wireless FCC
A federal appeals court later remanded the FCC’s 2019 decision to keep those 1996 limits, finding the agency failed to give a reasoned explanation addressing non-thermal harms and long-term exposures in today’s environment. Justia LawFederal Communications Commission
The historical record shows non-thermal bioeffects were already on the table
-
Early lab phenomena: In the 1960s, Allan H. Frey reported the microwave auditory effect at very low average power densities—a classic demonstration that bioeffects can occur without bulk heating. Physiology JournalsQuestions and Answers in MRI
-
Government programs: The Cold-War Moscow Signal triggered Project PANDORA/BIZARRE, a classified U.S. research effort on microwave bioeffects—evidence the U.S. government was investigating non-thermal outcomes decades before 1996. Declassified files document the program’s scope and methods. National Security ArchiveESD
-
Comprehensive bibliographies: The U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute compiled 2,000+ references by 1971 (and 3,700+ by 1976) on biological responses to RF/microwave radiation, with explicit attention to non-ionizing, non-thermal effects. These catalogs predate the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP limits the FCC later adopted. Regulations.govEnvironmental Health Trust
-
Academic & clinical voices: Robert O. Becker and Andrew Marino wrote (1982) that non-thermal biological effects exist and described the opposition they encountered when testifying about them—again, long before 1996. rebprotocol.net
-
DNA damage signals before codification: Lai & Singh reported single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells from low-level microwave exposure in the mid-1990s—precisely the kind of endpoint a thermal-only framework doesn’t capture. PubMedSpringerLink
-
Industry’s own research program turmoil: The CTIA’s $25 million Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program, led by George Carlo, became mired in controversy. Carlo’s 1999 letters to industry leaders warned of tumor signals and urged consumer warnings; trade press and archives detail the conflict that followed as the program wound down. RCR Wireless Newsgoaegis.comcqpress.sagepub.com
What “thermal-only” really meant—and why critics call it illegitimate
The IEEE standard history itself explains that legacy localized SAR limits were derived from dosimetry ratios and heating considerations—e.g., peak-to-whole-body SAR scaling—reflecting the measurement tools of the 1970s–1990s, not a determination that non-thermal effects do not exist. Regulations.gov
In other words, no scientific consensus ever proved the only possible harm was heat; rather, regulatory limits focused on heat because it was quantifiable and easier to model. The existence of non-thermal bioeffects was documented in government catalogs, academic monographs, early lab findings, and industry-funded disputes before the FCC codified the thermal framework in 1996. The 2021 court remand and 2025 WHO-commissioned animal reviews simply underscore how untenable a heat-only lens has become.