You deserve it straight: the new small-scale NIEHS/NTP radiofrequency (RFR) studies are a stall tactic—polished, expensive, and strategically pointed at the wrong targets. They retread the same 2G/3G bands (900 and 1900 MHz) we’ve been studying for decades while the real-world exposure moves deeper into your home and body via low-band 5G at 600 MHz. That mismatch isn’t an accident. It’s a playbook: test yesterday, deploy tomorrow, and tell the public “we’re working on it” while the exposure landscape races ahead. National Toxicology Program
What We Already Know (and Why Retesting 2G/3G Is a Red Herring)
By 2018 the U.S. National Toxicology Program had already run the most expensive rodent RFR program in history and reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas and some evidence of brain gliomas in male rats at whole-body 900 MHz exposures—non-thermal levels, not “cooking.” Those findings were published in the NTP technical reports and public summaries years ago. Re-proving them again at 900/1900 MHz doesn’t protect anyone living under 2025-era networks. It just burns the clock. National Toxicology Program+1
Independent scientists then replicated the same rare heart-tumor signal under far-field, tower-like exposure at 1.8 GHz (Ramazzini Institute), again at intensities thousands of times below heating thresholds. Converging results, different labs, different setups, same tumor type, same sex. This is what toxicology calls a signal. PubMedScienceDirectEnvironmental Health Trust
In 2025, the WHO-commissioned systematic review locked this down: high certainty (the top GRADE rating) that RF exposure causes malignant heart schwannomas and brain gliomas in male rats—new evidence is unlikely to change that conclusion. Waiting for yet another 900/1900 MHz study is theater. ScienceDirectPubMed
And it isn’t just cancer: the WHO review on male fertility—updated with an April 2025 corrigendum—upgraded reduced pregnancy rate in animal studies to high certainty as well. That is the level of confidence regulators claim they need. We’re there. ScienceDirectPubMed+1
Meanwhile, the Exposure You Actually Live With: 600 MHz 5G
While agencies polish their 2G/3G chamber rigs, low-band 5G at 600 MHz (Band 71) is already blanketing the country. Carriers advertise it as “Extended Range 5G”—because lower frequency travels farther and penetrates buildings (and bodies) better. This is the coverage layer of U.S. 5G. That’s not speculation; it’s how the network is built. T-Mobile+1
Physics 101: penetration depth increases as frequency decreases. Lower-frequency RF fields reach deeper tissues; higher frequencies are absorbed more superficially. That inverse relationship is basic EM biophysics and appears across RF/dermatology literature and safety engineering alike. If your “future” studies ignore 600 MHz, they ignore the deepest-reaching exposures millions already have. PMC+1
And for the record: very high frequencies (mmWave > 6 GHz) deposit energy mostly in the skin, which is why industry likes to say “5G is just skin deep”—but the coverage layer that actually connects rural towns and punches through walls is sub-1 GHz, not mmWave. Conflating the two hides the ball. ResearchGate
Why Courts and Communities Haven’t Fixed This (Yet)
If you’re wondering why this obvious mismatch survives, look at the law. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts local governments from denying towers “on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions” so long as installations meet FCC limits. In plain English: you can’t raise health evidence in siting fights if the site is under the FCC’s thermal-only limits. That firewall has smothered community challenges for nearly 30 years. Legal Information Institutewireless.fcc.govW&L Law Scholarly Commons
In 2021, the D.C. Circuit agreed that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for keeping its 1996 thermal-only limits in the face of a large record of non-thermal evidence; the court remanded the decision. The agency still hasn’t delivered a comprehensive fix. So yes, the legal structure has helped keep this stuck in the 1990s. Justia LawFederal Communications Commission
The “New” NIEHS Chambers: Looking Backward While We March Forward
NIEHS touts “modernized” small-scale reverberation chambers configured around 900/1900 MHz GSM/CDMA signals—the very bands NTP already used to show harm—and proposes more short-term assays at those same frequencies. That is not “future-proofing”; it’s institutional procrastination. With WHO declaring high-certainty harms in animals and low-band 5G (600 MHz) shouldering national coverage, aiming the next decade of lab work at yesteryear’s spectrum is indefensible. ScienceDirectPubMed
“But Isn’t All Wireless the Same?” No—And That’s the Point
Risk isn’t one number. It’s frequency, modulation, duty cycle, body geometry, tissue dielectric properties, and time. Shift the frequency and you change which tissues are primarily exposed. 600 MHz delivers fields deeper into marrow, reproductive organs, and deep brain structures than 900/1900 MHz, all else equal. If your safety program never studies the actual coverage-layer band saturating the country, it’s not a safety program. PMC
A Smarter Path: Push Exposure Up the Spectrum Indoors (Li-Fi) and Study What Matters Outdoors
There are better design choices. Li-Fi—networking via visible/near-IR light—does not flood the body with deep-penetrating RF fields. Optical energy at those wavelengths is limited by superficial absorption and scattering in skin and eyes, governed by established photobiological standards (IEC 62471; ICNIRP visible/IR limits). Translation: very different exposure profile, largely non-penetrating in bulk tissue, with mature safety frameworks focused on ocular/skin thresholds rather than whole-body RF absorption. For indoor networking, Li-Fi can cut deep-tissue RF load dramatically. ICNIRPPMCEuropean Commission
That doesn’t mean “no precautions ever” for light—photobiology still matters—but it does mean you can architect environments with orders-of-magnitude less deep-tissue coupling than low-band RF. Meanwhile, for outdoor/wide-area coverage where light won’t do, regulators must study the actual bands in use—first and fast.
What Accountability Looks Like (Now, Not 10 Years From Now)
-
Retune NIEHS/NTP platforms to 600 MHz immediately and replicate the NTP chronic protocol with current 5G modulations. Public health isn’t served by proving 1990s harms again; it’s served by clarifying today’s risks. National Toxicology Program
-
Adopt WHO’s 2025 conclusions as the new scientific baseline: animal evidence for cancer and reduced pregnancy rate is high certainty; treat it accordingly in risk management. ScienceDirect+1PubMed
-
Revisit FCC limits in light of the 2021 court remand, adding non-thermal endpoints and chronic low-level exposures; stop hiding behind a thermal model from 1996. Justia Law
-
Prioritize alternatives indoors (e.g., Li-Fi) to de-RF sensitive spaces like schools and pediatric wards, while hard-testing the low-band spectrum that actually blankets the country. ICNIRP
The Bottom Line
This isn’t complicated. We already have high-certainty animal evidence of harm at legacy bands, replicated across labs. We already know low-band 5G at 600 MHz is the coverage workhorse of U.S. deployments and, by physics, reaches deeper into the body. Yet the “new” studies aim backward. That mismatch is how you lose another decade while telling the public you’re “being careful.” The only careful thing now is to test what people actually live in—and redesign where we can to reduce deep-tissue exposures.
Anything else is theater. And the ticket is on us.
