Policy & governance: why the failure is structural (S4 MITO spin + “Clean Ether Act”)

Our goal is not to claim that RFR and non‑native EMFs are responsible for every case of cancer, autism, autoimmune disease, or metabolic disorder. The S4 MITO spin framework is about providing a unified, empirically grounded mechanism that explains:

• Why certain tissues (heart, brain, endocrine, blood) are consistently affected.

• Why dose–response patterns are often non‑linear.

• Why different studies, frequencies, and power levels can look “sporadic” on the surface but still fit a coherent pattern.

Once that mechanistic backbone exists, the central problem becomes policy and governance, not lack of science.

6.1 The 2021 D.C. Circuit ruling: FCC’s RF limits “arbitrary and capricious”

In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC (2021), brought by Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense, the D.C. Circuit held that the FCC’s 2019 decision to retain its 1996 RF exposure limits was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act because: Justia Law+2Environmental Health Trust+2

• The FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for concluding that its guidelines adequately protect against non‑cancer health effects at levels below current limits.

• It failed to address:

  • Effects on children,

  • Long‑term and ubiquitous exposures,

  • Pulsation/modulation and newer technologies (Wi‑Fi, 5G),

  • Environmental impacts (wildlife, ecosystems).

• The court specifically criticized the FCC for simply pointing to short, conclusory FDA statements, without the underlying analysis:

  “One agency’s unexplained adoption of an unreasoned analysis just compounds rather than vitiates the analytical void. Said another way, two wrongs do not make a right.” Environmental Health Trust+2Justia Law+2

So whenever anyone appeals to “FDA/FCC say it’s safe,” this ruling matters: a federal court has already found that the FCC’s reliance on unexplained FDA assurances does not meet even the minimal standard of reasoned decision‑making.

6.2 Public Law 90‑602: Congress already gave HHS the job

Public Law 90‑602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968) amended the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to:

• “establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program designed to protect the public health and safety from electronic product radiation,” including:

  • “develop and administer performance standards for electronic products”;

  • “plan, conduct, coordinate, and support research… to minimize the emissions of and the exposure of people to unnecessary electronic product radiation”;

  • “study and evaluate emissions of, and conditions of exposure to, electronic product radiation and intense magnetic fields.” Congress.gov+2U.S. Code+2

The statute defines “electronic product radiation” as:

• “any ionizing or non‑ionizing electromagnetic or particulate radiation … emitted from an electronic product as the result of the operation of an electronic circuit in such product.” Congress.gov+1

That plainly includes RFR from wireless devices and infrastructure. The “Secretary” under these provisions is now defined in U.S. Code as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Code+1

In other words:

Congress already mandated that HHS maintain a research‑backed performance‑standards program for non‑ionizing radiation from electronic products, which includes RF emissions.

6.3 NTP’s RF program shutdown: a statutory and scientific gap

• The National Toxicology Program (NTP), housed at NIEHS under HHS, completed its large 2‑year rat/mouse RF studies and concluded there is a link between 2G/3G‑like cell‑phone RFR and heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats, and some evidence for brain gliomas and adrenal tumors. National Toxicology Program+1

• After follow‑up small‑scale exposure work, NTP/NIEHS now state that no further RFR exposure studies are planned, largely because the exposure system is tuned to 2G/3G and is “more resource intensive than expected.” National Toxicology Program

Independent experts have flagged this as a serious policy failure:

• James C. Lin (long‑time RF standards expert and former IEEE/ICES chair) writes that the termination of NIH–NTP’s RF‑effects cancer program essentially halted all non‑military biological RF research in the U.S., and calls for a rethink of “flawed” RF safety standards and their heat‑only assumptions. PMC+2PubMed+2

From an S4 MITO spin vantage point:

When the only large U.S. government program that found clear evidence of cancer from cell‑phone‑like RFR is frozen right after those findings—and when Public Law 90‑602 explicitly tasks HHS with ongoing standards and research on non‑ionizing electromagnetic radiation—it is reasonable to argue that HHS is failing to meet Congress’s intent, whether or not a court has yet said so.

Given that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is now the sitting HHS Secretary, that responsibility sits on his desk. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

6.4 Section 704 and the structural gag on RF health

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 says that local governments:

• “may not regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” when those facilities comply with FCC limits. Environmental Health Trust+1

In practice, case law in several circuits has treated “environmental effects” as including health considerations, effectively gagging local authorities from factoring RF health/environmental concerns into siting decisions so long as FCC limits are met. Environmental Health Trust+2Supreme Court+2

Combined with:

• An FCC that is a communications regulator with no in‑house medical staff,

• An FCC whose 1996 limits were deemed arbitrary and capricious for non‑cancer health effects, and

• An HHS/FDA apparatus that the court has already found to supply only conclusory, unexplained assurances, Justia Law+2Environmental Health Trust+2

Section 704 functions, in effect, as a federal gag rule on communities’ ability to respond to emerging science.

6.5 Technology exit ramp: Li‑Fi (optical wireless) as a scalable alternative

We are not arguing that modern society must abandon wireless connectivity. We are arguing that:

• There is now a mature, standards‑based alternative that can carry a large share of indoor and short‑range traffic with light instead of RF:

  • In 2023, IEEE ratified 802.11bb, a global Li‑Fi standard that uses near‑infrared light (800–1000 nm) to deliver 10 Mbit/s to 9.6 Gbit/s data rates, interoperable with Wi‑Fi. Wikipedia+2IEEE Spectrum+2

  • Li‑Fi can operate indoors, even with reflections, and provides huge bandwidth without contributing to RF congestion or RF tissue exposure. IEEE Spectrum+1

From a policy standpoint, this matters because it means:

We now have a credible engineering pathway to shift a significant fraction of our data traffic off the RF spectrum and into the optical domain, where the S4 MITO spin concerns about non‑ionizing RF exposure are greatly reduced.

6.6 Our policy package: the “Clean Ether Act”

Framed in one line:

The science we have now justifies structural reforms, not panic. The S4 MITO spin framework says the risks are mechanistically plausible and empirically supported, and the law already says HHS must manage electronic radiation. The missing piece is governance.

Our concrete asks, wrapped into what we call a Clean Ether Act, are:

1. Repeal or substantially amend Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act, so that states and localities are free to take health and environmental RF effects into account when siting wireless infrastructure. Environmental Health Trust+1

2. Enforce Public Law 90‑602 by requiring HHS to maintain an active Electronic Product Radiation Control program for non‑ionizing RF, including:

   • Modern performance standards for RFR‑emitting products and infrastructure;

   • A funded, transparent biological effects research program (including a rebooted and expanded NTP RF program) with independent oversight. National Toxicology Program+4Congress.gov+4U.S. Code+4

3. Clarify the division of labor:

   • The FCC regulates spectrum and engineering compatibility.

   • HHS (and, for environmental aspects, EPA) lead on health and ecological risk assessment for non‑ionizing radiation, consistent with PL 90‑602. U.S. Code+2Wikipedia+2

4. Prioritize Li‑Fi and wired backbones in national broadband and infrastructure policy:

   • Treat IEEE 802.11bb‑compliant Li‑Fi as a preferred technology for dense indoor and short‑range connectivity, especially in schools, hospitals, and homes. IEEE Spectrum+1

   • Incentivize fiber + Li‑Fi architectures that minimize chronic RF exposures while still delivering high‑bandwidth service.

Within that frame, your line about mechanistic probability lands cleanly:

Given the emerging evidence of S4‑based VGIC disruption, mitochondrial ROS, and spin‑mediated redox effects, continuing to flood the ether with unbounded RF while defunding the very programs Congress mandated is not precaution; it is, at best, regulatory inertia and, at worst, corporate capture. A Clean Ether Act would realign policy with both Congress’s original intent in Public Law 90‑602 and the mechanistic and toxicological data in front of us today—before we find out, one calcium spike and one oxidative burst at a time, that we waited too long.