Big Pharma deserves scrutiny. It always has. But if we stop the analysis there, we miss the elephant in the room—the wireless economy that has embedded pulsed microwave radiation into every classroom, bedroom, and nursery in America under rules written in the dial‑up era.
Pharma is constantly audited by FDA. Wireless is “self‑regulated” by the FCC under exposure limits drafted in the 1980s/early 1990s and adopted in 1996 to prevent heating, not to evaluate modern, chronic, low‑level biological effects. The D.C. Circuit has already said the FCC’s decision to keep those limits—unchanged for nearly three decades—was “arbitrary and capricious,” and sent the matter back in 2021. Yet the agency still hasn’t completed that homework.
Meanwhile, the White House’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) push, now under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., talks tough about kids’ health—but in its May 2025 assessment, wireless hazards get a token mention that leans on dated reviews, omits the strongest new evidence, and punts on reform. Even supporters of stronger RF protections called the MAHA report’s wireless chapter a blind spot.
I’m all for watching pharma. But the real wolf is the microwave economy we’ve allowed to grow—legally insulated, scientifically downplayed, and now culturally invisible.
Follow the Money: The Wireless‑Dependent Economy Dwarfs Drug Sales
If you only count telecom services, you already get to roughly $1.5 trillion globally in 2023. Add in consumer electronics (phones, tablets, TVs, wearables—much of it wireless‑centric) at about $1.2 trillion in 2024, plus enterprise IoT spending of roughly $0.8 trillion in 2023, and the wireless‑dependent stack clears $3 trillion a year—before you count chipsets, network gear, app ecosystems, and mobile advertising. By contrast, the global pharma market is on the order of $1.5 trillion. (Yes, categories overlap; the point is order‑of‑magnitude.)
-
Sources: IDC estimates telecom services at $1.509 T (2023); Grand View puts consumer electronics revenue at $1.214 T (2024); IDC projects enterprise IoT at $805.7 B (2023); EFPIA pegs global pharma at about $1.53 T.
In other words: even conservatively, wireless‑dependent revenues meet or exceed pharma. Yet look who faces constant Congressional oversight—and who doesn’t.
Follow the Law: A 1996 Gag Rule + 1996 Heat‑Only Limits
Two pillars keep the wolf fed:
-
Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act preempts local governments from denying or conditioning towers “on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions” if the facility meets FCC limits. That means communities cannot cite health to keep towers away from playgrounds—even if new science raises alarms.
-
The FCC’s 1996 exposure limits, built on ANSI/IEEE 1992 and NCRP 1986 heating thresholds, still define “safety.” The Commission reaffirmed those limits in a 2019 order without addressing long‑term, non‑thermal effects—prompting the D.C. Circuit in 2021 to remand the decision as arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider evidence of harm unrelated to cancer (e.g., neurological, reproductive, children’s unique susceptibility). Four years later, petitioners are still asking the FCC to complete the remand.
Let’s be plain: local control is muzzled, and federal limits remain stuck in a thermal model from the pager era.
Follow the Science: NTP, Ramazzini, and New WHO Reviews
-
NTP (NIH’s National Toxicology Program) 2‑year animal studies found “clear evidence” of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and “some evidence” of brain gliomas—using 2G/3G exposures. Some endpoints showed non‑monotonic patterns, with increased effects even at the lowest whole‑body SAR group (1.5 W/kg), which directly challenges the notion that “more heat is the only risk.”
-
The Ramazzini Institute independently reported the same tumor types (schwannomas; glial tumors) at base‑station‑like exposures, strengthening the signal across labs and exposure regimes.
-
In 2011, the WHO’s IARC classified RF fields as Group 2B (possible carcinogen); in 2025, a WHO‑commissioned systematic review (Mevissen et al.) concluded that RF exposure increases cancer in experimental animals, with the strongest certainty for heart schwannomas and brain gliomas—and rated the animal evidence as high‑quality. National agencies summarized these findings this spring.
-
In 2024, a WHO‑commissioned fertility review (Cordelli et al.) found moderate‑certainty evidence that RF exposure impairs male fertility metrics and increases failed pregnancies; DNA damage appears at relatively low SARs.
And yet—in January 2024 the NTP announced it was ceasing RF research, and in 2025 advocates are still begging HHS to restart it. That is the opposite of what Public Law 90‑602 (1968 Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act) intended: continuous, independent reassessment of radiation‑emitting products as science evolves.
Bottom line: the weight of evidence justifies precautionary policy, especially for children. Pretending the 1996 “heat‑only” limits settle biology in 2025 is not science; it’s inertia.
“Ban the Phones” ≠ “Fix the Exposure”
Politicians love symbolic wins. Banning student phone use in schools reads as protecting kids. But it does not reduce the ambient exposure from cell towers and high‑power Wi‑Fi blanketing classrooms and homes.
-
Jersey (Channel Islands) just announced a school‑day phone ban starting September 2025—phones off and out of sight all day. That may help classroom focus; it will not move the dose from the site 465 feet outside the window.
-
France did this years ago (phones banned for pupils up to 15). Again: it’s behavior policy, not exposure policy.
-
My own 7‑year‑old attends a school 465 feet from a tower. Independent scientists and many municipalities have urged buffer zones—500–1,500 feet near schools and homes—long ignored because Section 704 blocks health‑based siting decisions. Palo Alto’s 2024 resolution called for 1,500 feet from schools. That’s the kind of infrastructure fix bans never touch.
And remember Ripon, California (2019): after a cancer cluster at Weston Elementary, Sprint removed a tower on campus following community outrage. The problem wasn’t a phone in a child’s hand; it was infrastructure parked on school grounds.
Sponsorship Bias: Wireless Has the Same Red Flags People Cite About Pharma
You’ve heard it about drugs and pesticides; it shows up in wireless, too. A systematic review in Environmental Health Perspectives (Huss et al., 2007) found industry‑funded RF studies were ~9× less likely to report significant effects than independent studies (OR ≈ 0.11). That’s not conspiracy; that’s a well‑documented funding effect. MAHA’s report talks at length about corporate influence elsewhere, but it sidestepped this in the wireless chapter.
Secretary Kennedy, You’re the Gatekeeper Now
As HHS Secretary and public face of MAHA, you’ve warned families for years not to keep a phone to a child’s head or in a pocket. You supported lawsuits that helped produce the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 rebuke of the FCC’s non‑action. Yet MAHA’s May 2025 report minimizes the newest science and offers no plan to fix the standards gap. Even allied organizations are saying it plainly: the report fell short on wireless.
This is fixable. Here’s the policy that protects kids and keeps connectivity:
A “Clean Ether Act” (What We Should Do Now)
-
Enforce Public Law 90‑602. Direct NTP/NIH to restart a multi‑year, independent RF research program (mechanisms, long‑term, children), with real conflict‑of‑interest firewalls. Publish rolling updates the public can trust.
-
Complete the FCC court remand. Require the Commission to address non‑thermal biology, children’s susceptibility, pulsation/modulation, and multi‑source chronic exposures—not just heat. (HHS can’t order the FCC, but it can lead scientifically and coordinate with FDA/CDRH.)
-
Restore community voice. Seek legislative reform of Section 704 so localities can apply prudent setbacks near schools and homes where warranted by current science.
-
Fix exposure where kids are. Replace classroom Wi‑Fi with fiber + Li‑Fi (the IEEE 802.11bb standard is now published), and push wired by default in early‑childhood settings. This reduces RF without sacrificing performance.
-
Mandate device‑level safety modes. Require school geofencing that disables high‑duty‑cycle radios indoors (except for emergency), with airplane‑mode‑by‑default profiles for tablets, and wired accessories standardized.
-
Modernize compliance. Move beyond single‑device SAR to realistic multi‑source exposure metrics in places children spend time (classrooms, bedrooms).
That is how you protect kids. Not by taking a phone from their hands while leaving a tower at the fence line.
The Rhetorical Feint We Must Stop
Banning student phones makes for easy headlines, just like age‑restricted cigarettes did in the 1880s while tobacco companies fought off real regulation for a century. We shouldn’t spend the next 20 years congratulating ourselves for phone bans while leaving 1996 heat‑only limits and Section 704 intact.
Fight the cause, and scrutinize the cure.
-
The cause is structurally unchecked RF infrastructure and standards.
-
The cure is honest science, modern limits, and safer in‑building tech.
Until we face that, every “crackdown on Big Pharma” is political theater, and kids like my daughter—465 feet from a tower—remain unprotected.