Public Law 90‑602—the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968—and why it’s such a crucial “missing piece” in the RF policy puzzle alongside returning RFR guidance to the EPA, repealing Section 704 of the TCA, and mandating Li‑Fi compatibility in all smart devices.
1. What Is PL 90‑602?
Enacted in 1968, PL 90‑602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act) was intended to protect public health by controlling electronic product radiation. Although it initially focused on ionizing radiation from X‑ray machines and other medical devices, the law also provided a framework for the federal government to set and enforce safety standards for all forms of radiation from electronic products, including non‑ionizing sources like microwaves and radiofrequency emissions.
Key Provisions
- Federal Enforcement: Authorized the government to create and update performance standards to ensure the public wasn’t exposed to harmful radiation.
- Research Mandate: Called for ongoing federal research and data collection to inform those standards.
- Public Health Focus: Put health agencies (originally under what is now the Department of Health & Human Services) in the lead to ensure regulatory decisions were guided by medical and scientific expertise, not solely engineering or industry priorities.
2. Why It Fell Off the Radar
Despite its broad wording, PL 90‑602’s non‑ionizing radiation oversight gradually atrophied due to:
- Budget Cuts & Agency Shifts: Funding and responsibility for non‑ionizing radiation research and rulemaking were whittled away or transferred.
- Rise of the FCC’s Role: Over time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took the lead on setting RF exposure guidelines—even though the FCC is fundamentally an engineering and spectrum‑management agency, not a public health agency.
- Industry Influence: As wireless technology exploded (cell phones, Wi‑Fi, 5G), telecom interests pushed to keep the focus on thermal exposures. Meanwhile, PL 90‑602’s non‑ionizing safety research and enforcement quietly faded to the sidelines.
The end result? Non‑thermal RF effects—like DNA damage, oxidative stress, or blood‑brain barrier impacts—were never seriously tackled within PL 90‑602’s framework, and the robust research programs that the Act envisioned eventually stalled.
3. How PL 90‑602 Complements the Other RF Policy Goals
-
Return RFR Guidance to the EPA
- Why the EPA? The EPA’s mandate is to protect the environment and human health through rigorous scientific assessments. Bringing the EPA back into the mix could resurrect the spirit of PL 90‑602: continuing research, setting science-based standards, and updating them in response to emerging evidence.
- How They Mesh: PL 90‑602 provides the legal backbone for ongoing research and regulatory updates, while the EPA could administer that oversight in practice, rather than deferring to the FCC.
-
Repeal or Amend Section 704 of the TCA
- Section 704 explicitly preempts localities from regulating cell towers based on “environmental effects” of RF emissions, as long as the FCC’s guidelines are met.
- This ban on health or environmental considerations directly conflicts with PL 90‑602’s premise that ongoing research and public-health standards should guide safety.
- Removing or rewriting Section 704 would let communities and federal health agencies factor in new scientific findings and enforce more protective standards.
-
Enforce PL 90‑602
- Bringing PL 90‑602 back to life means federally mandated research into RF health impacts, continuous re‑evaluation of exposure levels, and the possibility of stricter, non‑thermal–aware guidelines.
- It would also give the public a clear channel to demand accountability: If new evidence shows harm, the government must take action to adjust exposure limits.
-
Mandate Li‑Fi
- Shifting or complementing wireless communication with Li‑Fi (Light Fidelity) drastically reduces RF exposure by using light instead of microwaves to transmit data.
- PL 90‑602’s emphasis on safer technology development fits perfectly here: if the law were fully enforced, it would encourage exploring (and possibly adopting) lower‑risk alternatives like Li‑Fi whenever the science indicates an RF risk.
- Mandating Li‑Fi compatibility also aligns with the Act’s spirit of fostering innovation that prioritizes public well‑being.
4. Why PL 90‑602 Is the “Core” of a Human‑Centric Wireless Future
4.1 Continuous Research & Updating Standards
By design, PL 90‑602 is not meant to be a one‑time snapshot of safety levels. It calls for iterative improvements and expansions of safety regulations as new data emerges. For radiofrequency radiation—a fast‑evolving field—this means guidelines can keep pace with technological leaps like 5G or 6G.
4.2 Prioritizing Public Health Over Profit
PL 90‑602 explicitly places health and safety at the center of regulatory decisions, rather than deferring to industry’s push for rapid deployment. This shift from an engineering focus to a health focus is critical for addressing non‑thermal RF effects that the telecom industry often downplays.
4.3 Preventing Stalled or Suppressed Research
One of the greatest benefits of robust PL 90‑602 enforcement would be a guaranteed budget and framework for long‑term research. That means an end to abrupt defunding of studies (like the National Toxicology Program’s RF projects) when preliminary findings suggest potential harm. Under PL 90‑602, these studies would be institutionally supported.
5. How to Bring PL 90‑602 Back
-
Congressional Actions:
- Pass new legislation explicitly reaffirming PL 90‑602’s application to non‑ionizing radiation, with dedicated funding.
- Tie it to broader environmental and health initiatives so it can’t be easily defunded in the future.
-
Agency Collaboration (EPA & HHS):
- Assign or reassign PL 90‑602 rule‑making authority to agencies with a public health mandate—the EPA or the Department of Health & Human Services.
- Reinstate ongoing research budgets, ensuring open, peer‑reviewed studies.
-
Executive Orders & Public Pressure:
- The White House could direct agencies to enforce the full scope of PL 90‑602, especially given the growing body of evidence on non‑thermal RF risks.
- Public advocacy groups can pressure lawmakers to do what PL 90‑602 always intended: regulate and innovate for safety, not just convenience.
6. Big Picture: From the “Microwave Age” to the “Light Age”
The vision many advocates share is a deliberate transition from high‑power, blanket RF emissions to safer, more targeted or alternative technologies like Li‑Fi. Properly enforced PL 90‑602 would provide:
- A scientific rationale for stepping away from blanket microwave exposure as evidence of risk accumulates.
- A regulatory scaffold ensuring that new technologies—like Li‑Fi, beamforming antennas, and minimal‑power networks—are incentivized when they reduce public exposure.
Far from blocking innovation, PL 90‑602’s enforcement can spur cutting-edge solutions (think catalytic converters for the automotive industry decades ago). Once safe‑technology mandates are on the table, industry typically innovates at lightning speed.
Conclusion
Public Law 90‑602 is more than just a dusty statute from the 1960s—it’s a powerful, health‑first framework for any radiation‑emitting technology, including RF devices and networks. When woven together with returning RF oversight to the EPA, repealing Section 704, and mandating Li‑Fi, it forms the bedrock of a wireless future that is both innovative and aligned with human and environmental well‑being.
Enforcing PL 90‑602 means research continues, standards evolve based on credible science, and safer technologies gain traction. It brings us closer to the “Light Age” you envision—where progress, not profit alone, drives the evolution of our communications infrastructure.
