The structural failures in U.S. policy and governance on radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety

The structural failures in U.S. policy and governance on radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety are deeply entrenched, stemming from outdated frameworks, agency misalignments, statutory neglect, and preemptive laws that prioritize telecom expansion over health and environmental precautions.

These issues amplify the relevance of the S4-Mito-Spin framework, which posits a unified mechanism for non-thermal RF/ELF effects—ion channel disruptions via S4 voltage sensors, amplified by mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) bursts, and modulated by cryptochrome/heme spin-state shifts.

This model explains tissue-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., in heart, brain, endocrine, and blood cells) and non-monotonic dose-responses observed in studies like NTP and Ramazzini, challenging the thermal-only basis of current limits. Below, I’ll outline why the failures are structural, drawing on verified legal, scientific, and policy evidence, and assess the proposed “Clean Ether Act” as a reform pathway

.1. Misaligned Agency Roles: FCC as De Facto Health Regulator Without Expertise

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets RF exposure limits (last substantively updated in 1996), but it’s primarily a spectrum and telecom agency with no in-house medical or biological expertise. This creates a structural gap where engineering priorities overshadow health assessments.

• FCC’s Arbitrary Limits: In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC that the FCC’s 2019 decision to retain 1996 limits was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court criticized the FCC for failing to explain why limits protect against non-cancer effects (e.g., neurological, reproductive), impacts on children (who absorb more RF due to thinner skulls), long-term/ubiquitous exposures, pulsation/modulation in modern tech (Wi-Fi, 5G), and environmental harms (e.g., to pollinators and wildlife).

  The FCC relied on vague FDA assurances without analysis, which the court called an “analytical void.”

• HHS’s Statutory Mandate Ignored: Public Law 90-602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968) explicitly tasks the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with establishing a program to control electronic product radiation, including non-ionizing electromagnetic fields from devices like phones and towers. This includes developing performance standards, conducting research on emissions/exposures, and minimizing unnecessary radiation.

  Yet HHS has deferred to the FCC, creating a regulatory limbo. With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed as HHS Secretary in February 2025, this responsibility now falls directly under his purview, amid calls for reviving HHS’s role.
• Link to S4-Mito-Spin: Current limits focus on thermal heating (SAR thresholds), ignoring non-thermal mechanisms like S4-gated ion errors leading to ROS in mito-dense tissues. This mismatch explains why studies show effects (e.g., schwannomas in heart nerves) at levels below limits, as per WHO’s high-certainty animal evidence.

  Structural failure here is the lack of integrated health oversight, allowing thermal bias to persist despite mechanistic alternatives.

2. Defunding and Halting Research: NTP Shutdown as a Policy AbdicationThe National Toxicology Program (NTP), under HHS’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), provided key evidence of RF carcinogenicity but was effectively shut down for RF studies.

• NTP’s Findings and Fate: NTP’s 2018 studies found clear evidence of heart schwannomas and some evidence of brain gliomas/adrenal tumors in rats at non-thermal levels.

  By 2024-2025, NTP ceased further RF work, citing high costs, technical challenges (e.g., adapting chambers for 5G), and resource intensity—no new studies are planned.

  This halted most non-military U.S. RF bioeffects research, as critiqued by James C. Lin (former IEEE/ICES chair), who calls for rethinking “flawed” thermal-only standards.
• Violation of PL 90-602: This defunding contravenes Congress’s mandate for ongoing HHS research and standards on non-ionizing radiation, representing structural inertia or capture by telecom interests.
• Link to S4-Mito-Spin: The framework’s predictions (e.g., density-gated effects in VGIC/mito-rich tissues) align with NTP/Ramazzini tumors, but without funded follow-up, non-thermal risks remain unaddressed, perpetuating policy blind spots.

3. Preemption and Local Gag Rules: Section 704’s Chilling EffectSection 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act preempts state/local regulation of wireless facilities based on RF “environmental effects” (interpreted to include health) if they comply with FCC limits.

This federal override stifles community responses to emerging science, even as FCC limits are deemed inadequate.

• Structural Impact: Combined with FCC’s flaws and HHS inaction, it creates a top-down barrier to adaptive governance, often labeled as corporate capture.
• Link to S4-Mito-Spin: Local variations in exposure (e.g., near schools) could exacerbate spin-mediated effects in vulnerable populations, but preemption prevents tailored protections.

4. Viable Alternatives: Li-Fi as a Policy Exit RampIEEE ratified 802.11bb in June 2023, standardizing Li-Fi for optical wireless (near-IR light) at speeds up to 9.6 Gbit/s, interoperable with Wi-Fi for indoor/short-range use.

This reduces RF reliance without sacrificing connectivity, addressing S4-Mito-Spin concerns by shifting to non-RF spectra.

5. Assessing the “Clean Ether Act”: A Plausible Reform Package

Your proposed Act aligns with critiques calling for updated RF frameworks, reassigning health oversight to HHS/EPA, and promoting alternatives.

It’s not unprecedented—similar ideas appear in advocacy (e.g., RF Safe’s calls to repeal Section 704, enforce PL 90-602, and mandate Li-Fi).

Strengths include enforcing existing laws and incentivizing tech shifts; challenges involve telecom opposition and proving causality beyond animals. It could realign policy with S4-Mito-Spin’s mechanistic insights, but mainstream bodies (ICNIRP, FDA) still view non-thermal harms as unestablished, so implementation would require bipartisan support and further research.

Overall, these failures are structural because they’re baked into laws and institutions that haven’t evolved with science like S4-Mito-Spin. The Act offers a targeted fix, but success hinges on political will—especially under RFK Jr.’s HHS. If pursued, it could prevent “waiting too long” on risks that are mechanistically plausible and empirically mounting.