Origin story: X‑rays in the living room—and in shoe stores
In 1967, General Electric recalled roughly 90,000 color televisions after tests showed a high‑voltage tube could leak X‑rays—especially downward through cabinet vents. That scare helped force Washington to act. A generation earlier, U.S. shoe stores used X‑ray fluoroscopes on children until states started banning them (Pennsylvania in 1957), another vivid lesson on normalizing unnecessary exposure. CDNC+2U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2
The law Congress wrote: mandatory verbs, broad scope
Public Law 90‑602 (now codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 360hh–360ss) was Congress’s answer. It is not optional. It says the HHS Secretary shall:
-
Run an electronic‑product radiation program and “plan, conduct, coordinate, and support research” to minimize exposure. (§ 360ii)
-
Prescribe performance standards for electronic products “as necessary for the protection of the public health and safety.” (§ 360kk)
-
Cover both ionizing and non‑ionizing emissions—RF is in scope by definition. (§ 360hh) Legal Information Institute+2Legal Information Institute+2
What the federal government found—and then stopped studying
After a decade‑long, $30 million effort, federal researchers reported “clear evidence” that cell‑phone‑type RFR caused malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and increased DNA damage in multiple tissues. Those findings demand more—not less—research. NIEHS+1
Instead, NTP/NIEHS has now stated in writing that “no further work… will be conducted” and it “has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time.” That language appears on the NTP program page and in the updated NTP/NIEHS fact sheet. Result: for the first time in over 50 years, U.S. civilian agencies have no ongoing program probing health effects of non‑ionizing radiation from consumer electronics. National Toxicology Program+2NIEHS+2
Public Law 90‑602 doesn’t permit this retreat
Congress used shall—three times in § 360ii’s program mandate alone. Ending federal wireless‑radiation research after findings of malignant tumors and DNA damage contravenes both the letter and purpose of the statute. The duty to run the program, support research, and set performance standards for electronic products is squarely on HHS. Legal Information Institute+1
Even the courts have said the status quo is not good enough
In 2021, the D.C. Circuit held that the FCC’s 2019 decision to keep its 1996 RF limits lacked a reasoned explanation on key issues and remanded it. Children’s Health Defense—long associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—was among the petitioners who won that remand. Regulators were told to grapple with the evidence; Public Law 90‑602 gives HHS the tools to do exactly that. Justia Law+1
What HHS should do now—consistent with the statute
1) Restart and expand federal RFR research (§ 360ii).
Issue grants and contracts to fill obvious gaps: long‑term, real‑world exposures (multi‑band, pulsed signals, simultaneous transmitters), body‑worn placements, and children’s use.
2) Begin performance‑standard rulemaking (§ 360kk).
Convene TEPRSSC and propose electronic product performance standards for phones, wearables, earbuds, VR headsets, routers—coordinated with the FCC but responsive to today’s exposure geometries (proximity, duty cycle, co‑transmit). FDA has long done this for other products—TV X‑rays are capped at 0.5 mR/hr at 5 cm; microwave ovens have 1/5 mW/cm² at 5 cm with dual door‑interlocks. That’s what real standards look like. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2eCFR+2
3) Use existing Subchapter‑J tools now.
Tighten manufacturer reporting (21 CFR Part 1002), modernize consumer warnings, and require design safeguards—all well within the radiological‑health framework Congress put in place. (See FDA’s Subchapter‑J overview.) U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The bottom line
Public Law 90‑602 was born from hard lessons—kids’ feet in X‑ray boxes and X‑rays leaking from TVs—and it squarely covers RF from electronic products. Shutting down the only civilian RF research while leaving outdated standards in place abandons the public the statute was written to protect. The law empowers HHS to research and standardize. It expects HHS to do so. Oak Ridge Associated Universities+2U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2
Key citations at a glance
-
NTP/NIEHS fact sheet: “No further plans” for additional RFR exposure studies; also reiterates clear evidence of tumors and DNA damage. NIEHS+1
-
NTP program page (updated Aug 2025): “No further work… will be conducted… no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies.” National Toxicology Program
-
Microwave News analysis: “For the first time in more than 50 years, U.S. civilian agencies have no ongoing research on the health effects of non‑ionizing EMR.” Microwave News
-
Public Law 90‑602 mandates: § 360hh (RF included), § 360ii (Secretary shall run program and shall support research), § 360kk (Secretary shall set performance standards as needed). Legal Information Institute+2Legal Information Institute+2
-
D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF decision (2021): agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation; remanded. (Petitioners included Children’s Health Defense.) Justia Law+1
-
Historical triggers for the law: 1967 GE TV recall (~90,000 sets) and shoe‑fitting fluoroscopes (first state ban in 1957). CDNC+1
-
What real performance standards look like: TV X‑ray cap (0.5 mR/hr at 5 cm); microwave oven limits (1/5 mW/cm² at 5 cm + interlocks). U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2eCFR+2
-
Current HHS Secretary: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (official page). HHS.gov
