The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for safeguarding the environment from damage caused by communication infrastructure. This mandate includes protecting wildlife and human health, preserving historic sites, and preventing aesthetic blight. However, when companies seek to add new cell phone towers, build on protected land, or launch satellites, the FCC typically does little or nothing to address the potential environmental impacts. The agency’s neglect of environmental protection is particularly concerning as it presides over a nationwide buildout for 5G service, which will require 800,000 new “small cell” transmitters placed near schools, apartments, and homes. Despite this massive effort, the FCC has refused to revise its radiation-exposure limits and has cut back on required environmental reviews while restricting local governments’ control over wireless sites. Additionally, the agency’s approach is hands-off, delegating much of its responsibility to the industries it regulates and allowing companies to decide for themselves whether their projects require environmental study. In the rare instances in which the FCC investigates, even brazen illegality is often met with a minor fine or no action at all. The agency declined to make officials available for interviews for this article or to respond to questions sent in writing.
Research News Archives
SAR Links
Archives
Recent Posts
- Vindicated: How January 2026’s Seismic Shifts Expose the Flaws in Fact Checkers’ Critique of RF Safe January 25, 2026
- The “FDA Proof” MBFC Cited Against RF Safe Was Removed January 25, 2026
- Checking Fact Checkers: MBFC’s Reliance on a Now Removed FDA Page @MBFC_News January 25, 2026
- RFK Jr. and HHS Were Right to Remove Blanket “Cell Phone Radiation Is Safe” Assurances January 19, 2026
- RFK Jr. Was Right to Pull FDA’s Blanket “Cell Phone Radiation Is Safe” Assurances January 19, 2026
- Cell Phone Radiation: What HHS/FDA actually did—and why that matters January 19, 2026
- The Mechanistic Pivot: Why HHS and FDA Must Fund Predictive Biology Now (S4–Mito–Spin) January 17, 2026
- RFK Jr., HHS, and the FDA’s Cell Phone Radiation Reset January 17, 2026
- FDA Removes “Safety Conclusion” Cellphone Radiation Pages as HHS Announces a New Study—Why the “NTP Was Too High Dose” Talking Point Fails January 16, 2026
- HHS study, FDA “before vs after,” and the FCC court remand January 16, 2026
- The Federal Script Just Changed on Cellphone Radiation: FDA Deletes “Old Conclusions” as HHS Launches a New Study January 16, 2026
- A Monumental Shift: FDA’s Cellphone Radiation Page Overhaul – From Unsubstantiated Safety Claims to Embracing the 1968 Mandate January 16, 2026
- When the FTC Put “Radiation Shield” Scams on Notice—and Why RF Safe Says the Warning Started Earlier January 16, 2026
- RF Safe’s QuantaCase (also known as TruthCase) January 16, 2026
- The Anti‑Radiation Phone Case Market Runs on Percentages. RF Safe Refuses to Sell One. January 15, 2026
- Why RF Safe’s TruthCase Refuses the “99% Blocking” Game — and Why That’s the Point January 15, 2026
- The Anti Radiation Case That Refuses to Sell a Number January 15, 2026
- RF Safe’s Market Position and Industry Skepticism January 15, 2026
- Rebutting Media Bias/Fact Check’s “Medium Credibility” Rating for RF Safe: How the S4 Mito Spin Framework Integrates Null Findings as Boundary Conditions January 14, 2026
- Negative Controls That Matter January 14, 2026
Recent Compares
-
Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra View Comparison → -
Samsung Galaxy S24 SAR Levels vs Apple iPhone 15 SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus SAR Levels vs Apple iPhone 15 Plus SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra SAR Levels vs Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Apple iPhone 15 vs Samsung Galaxy S23 SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max vs Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max SAR Levels View Comparison →

