For more than half a century, Andrew Marino, PhD, JD, has been one of the leading scientific voices investigating electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Over five decades and trained as both a biophysicist and an attorney, Dr. Marino has published research extensively on bioelectromagnetics, served as an expert witness in landmark 765 kV cases, and testified before regulatory agencies. His research with Dr. Robert Becker demonstrated that EMF at levels well below those levels which caused nerve stimulation and electrical shock could alter normal biological function.

In laboratory studies on animals, Marino and co-workers showed that exposure to man-made electromagnetic energy present in the human environment caused changes in the neurological, endocrinological, and immunological systems of the animals, and affected growth and survival. These biological responses were reported at levels people would be exposed to from high-voltage transmission lines.

His research was unfolding at the very same time electric utilities were proposing new high voltage transmission lines stretching across the United States, from Minnesota to New York. Today, communities across the country from Virginia and West Virginia to California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Texas and more are fighting 765 kV and 500 kV high-voltage transmission lines. Numerous counties and school boards are issuing resolutions of opposition, with EMF exposure as one of the numerous issues. Like the high voltage power lines being pushed through in the 70s, todays AI data center driven power lines are cutting though farms and neighborhoods and sparking fierce public opposition.

Here are some news clips from the Minnesota power line protests in the late 70s.

In the mid to late 70s, several groups fought the construction of a 150 mile high voltage power line in Northern New York State. Demonstrators blocked construction equipment, faced off with police, and tried to prevent electric utility crews from clearing land. Protests were happening in numerous states.

Dr. Marino filed numerous briefs regarding high voltage power lines and EMF health risk at that time. In our interview, Dr. Marino explained how his research revealed that artificial EMFs act as a stressor to the body and why he believes scientific institutions and governments took the wrong path decades ago.

Dr. Andrew Marino has a website compiling his published research as well as his legal testimony and scientific writings.

“In laboratory studies on animals, Marino and co-workers showed that exposure to man-made electromagnetic energy present in the human environment caused changes in the neurological, endocrinological, and immunological systems of the animals, and affected growth and survival.

Their proposed biological explanation for the broad range of observed effects was that the applied electromagnetic energy activated the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axes in the exposed animal, a process known to cause diverse consequences in the body. Marino reasoned that because animal and human physiology were similar, the occurrence of the biological effects in animals indicated that uncontrolled human exposure to man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment was a health risk, and that uncontrolled and unvetted exposure contributed to the occurrence of disease.”

Watch a Canadian Broadcasting Company investigation in 1988 where Dr. Andrew Marino explains the results of his EMF research:

How Dr. Andrew Marino Began Research Investigating EMF, Biology and Implications for Human Health

Andrew Marino earned his Ph.D. in Biophysics from Syracuse University and later his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law. Dr. Marino served as a Research Biophysicist at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Syracuse, New York, and later as a Professor in the Departments of Neurology, Cellular Biology and Anatomy, and Orthopaedic Surgery at Louisiana State University.

While at the VA, Dr. Marino worked closely with the late Dr. Robert O. Becker on pioneering research investigating electricity. Becker began this research while serving as Chief of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Syracuse, New York, where he sought to understand how salamanders regenerate lost limbs in the hope of one day applying those principles to human limb regeneration. This work ultimately led Becker to understand that electrical signals play a fundamental role in regulating fundamental biological processes, including bone healing, tissue regeneration, and bone growth. All living things are electrical beings.

Becker coined the term “electrical pollution” to describe the rapidly increasing presence of artificial manmade electromagnetic fields in the environment which he warned was a novel environmental stressor.

However, the decision by Becker and Marino to speak publicly about the health risk of EMFs came at a steep cost. As Marino describes in this interview, Becker soon lost all his research funding and the laboratory was forced to close.

Andrew A. Marino has authored and edited numerous books on bioelectromagnetics, including Electromagnetism & Life (with Robert O. Becker, 1982; updated edition, 2010), Electric Wilderness (with J. Ray, 1986; updated edition, 2011), Modern Bioelectricity (editor, 1988), and the memoir Going Somewhere: Truth About a Life in Science (2010).

Decades of Research Investigating EMF Biological Impacts

In our interview, Dr. Marino recounts how he spent several years testifying in 765-kV transmission line proceedings, presenting scientific evidence that EMF can produce adverse biological effects. His testimony was ultimately downplayed, but it did force New York State to embark on a years long research program which ultimately concluded power line EMF was linked to childhood leukemia.

Marino’s work with Dr. Robert Becker received national attention through two CBS 60 Minutes investigations from 1977, both of which have excerpts featured in this webinar. The first examined the controversy surrounding 765-kV high-voltage transmission lines, while the second focused on Project Seafarer, the U.S. Navy’s proposed EMF communication system for submarines. During the interview, Dr. Marino explains that the Navy-funded studies reviewed by Becker reported biological effects at ELF exposure levels that were approximately one million times lower than the field strengths associated with the proposed 765-kV transmission lines.

As an example of his laboratory studies, in 1980 Marino, Becker, and Ullrich conducted one of the first multigenerational studies of power-frequency electric fields, continuously exposing mice to 60 Hz electric fields of field strengths that Marino later noted are comparable to those found within approximately the first 100 feet of a typical 765-kV transmission line. The study found that across three successive generations, exposed mice exhibited reduced body weight and increased mortality, particularly in the vertically exposed group. In 1990 Marino’s peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in the Journal of Bioelectricity, reviewed eight multigenerational mouse experiments conducted over a 15-year period involving continuous exposure to 60-Hz electric fields.

Across these studies, he found that the exposure consistently altered development and developmental variability, with statistically significant effects observed in all eight experiments. Although these effects did not follow a simple linear dose-response relationship, Marino concludes that the exposure elicited different physiological responses depending on the organism’s internal regulatory systems.

The Influence of the Electric Companies Into the Science and Policy of EMF

Dr. Marino also reflected on the role of industry-funded experts and consultants in various high voltage line proceedings, arguing that financial conflicts of interest have shaped how scientific evidence on EMFs has been interpreted.

In our interview, Dr. Marino shared how replication studies were initiated after his animal studies found effects. He obtained internal government records through Freedom of Information Act requests showing how the researchers initially observed biological effects, but the study designs were changed and the findings were buried.

In 1987 a Congressional oversight hearing on the “Health effects of transmission lines” was held before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the Committee on Insular and Insular Affairs, in Washington DC, October 6, 1987 where Robert Becker and others testified:

Watch Dr. Robert Becker interviewed by 60 minutes in 1977.

The health issues raised more than fifty years ago continue to resonate today. However the scientific research reporting adverse effects has increased. Safety os not assured when it comes to the EMF exposure from high voltage lines.

Read our science and policy briefing on EMF health effects here. This is a great document to submit regarding EMF health effects and the lack of adequate health protections.

For more information about Dr. Marino and his work, and to read his scientific research and Legal filings and Amicus Briefs visit: https://andrewamarino.com

You may also be interested in:

• Robert Becker’s website

• April 1977 – Marino interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.

• February 1977 - 60 Minutes: “Project Seafarer” Interview with Robert O. BECKER, MD. Hosted by Dan Rather.

• March 1988 – Marino interviewed by the Canadian Broadcast Company.

• The Hazards of Electromagnetic Fields—I: Power Lines | The New Yorker, By Paul Brodeur 1989

• Prepared Testimony of Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D., J.D., Veterans Administration Hospital Syracuse, New York. State of New York, Public Service Commission, Cases 26529 AND 26559—Common Record Hearings on Health and Safety of 765 kV Transmission Lines, November1975. [PDF]

• Power frequency electric field induces biological changes in successive generations of mice. A.A. MARINO, M. Reichmanis, R.O. Becker, B. Ullrich & J.M. Cullen. Experientia 36: 309–311, 1980. [PDF]

• 765 KV Line Protest Collection: The North Country Defense Committee and the coalition Upstate People for Safe Energy Technology (UPSET) were the most prominent groups that opposed the implementation of the 765 kV power line by the New York State Power Authority.

• Environmental Health News: The Health Effects of EMF, ELF and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines and Electricity

Read my related Substack posts

• Dr. David Carpenter’s Letter on the Health Risks of High-Voltage Power Lines

• Major Wins for Children’s Health: U.S. School Districts Are Opposing High Voltage Power Lines + the 49ers May Relocate Away From the Substation!

• Speed Should Not Come Before Safety: Testimony on Data Center Pollution, Power-Line EMF Health Risks

• What the San Francisco 49ers and Data Centers Have in Common: An EMF Transparency Problem

This post is from our policy blog at Environmental Health Sciences here.

In his letter, Dr. David O. Carpenter explains that decades of peer-reviewed scientific research link long-term exposure to EMF magnetic fields with increased risks of childhood leukemia, adult cancers, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. David O. Carpenter is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, SUNY, a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre. He received his MD from Harvard and has spent more than four decades researching EMFs. He is also a Commissioner of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, a multi-disciplinary international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise in the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) frequencies.

Download Dr. Carpenter’s letter on EMF and health here.

Re: Scientific Evidence Supporting More Protective Setback Requirements for High-Voltage Transmission Lines and Substations Near Homes and Schools.

I am a public health physician and Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, SUNY, a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre. I have researched non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for over four decades. In the 1980s, I served as Executive Secretary of the New York Powerlines Project, a $5 million study of 60 Hz magnetic fields that included research reporting an increased risk of childhood leukemia associated with elevated residential magnetic fields from power lines. I later served as New York State’s spokesperson on EMF issues, Director of the Wadsworth Laboratory at the New York State Department of Health, Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany and have testified before the President’s Cancer Panel and the U.S. Congress on EMF and health.

Exposure to elevated power-frequency magnetic fields is associated with an increased risk of cancer, particularly childhood leukemia, as well as leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer in adults. The association between residential magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia has been replicated in numerous studies conducted in multiple countries. There is also strong evidence linking long-term exposure to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. These are serious, often fatal diseases.

Reliance on the exposure limits of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) or International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) does not protect the public, especially children, from the health impacts of long-term exposure. There is definitive evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that power-frequency EMF can produce biological effects at field strengths well below these limits. Importantly, the IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines are outdated and inadequate, as they were only designed to address short-term exposure effects and not the chronic, continuous exposures experienced by people living near high-voltage power lines for many hours each day over many years.

It is the responsibility of every government to protect its citizens from avoidable risks. In total, the scientific evidence, especially leukemia, brain and breast cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease, associated with EMF exposure is sufficiently strong to warrant policy action. I urge governments to do everything in their power to mitigate the serious health risks from high-voltage transmission lines and substations by adopting protective setbacks for homes and schools and implementing evidence-based measures to minimize EMF exposures, such as undergrounding and low-EMF engineering design.

High-voltage transmission lines and electric substations should be located as far away from homes, schools, and childcare facilities as possible. I am attaching a publication that presents the scientific evidence behind these recommendations.

Watch a video of Dr Carpenter explaining the health risk of EMF magnetic fields.

Attached to the letter is a review paper by Dr. Carpenter entitled “Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results” published in the journal Environmental Research. Carpenter found industry funding affects the results of studies on EMF and health. Carpenter found, “Almost all government or independent studies find either a statistically significant association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia, or an elevated risk of at least OR = 1.5, while almost all industry supported studies fail to find any significant or even suggestive association.”

Carpenter references numerous studies conducted over the last few decades and concludes that, “The evidence that magnetic fields increase the risk of cancer is neither inconsistent nor inconclusive. Furthermore, adults are also at risk, not just children, and there is strong evidence for cancers in addition to leukemia, particularly brain and breast cancer.”

From Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Georgia, and Texas, thousands of communities are being faced with new substations and high-voltage power line electric transmission corridors cutting through working farms, forests, neighborhoods, and even near schools, all to power the data center industry. Dr. Carpenter has also written to Temecula City, California, Hampshire Commission, West Virginia, Loudoun County, Culpeper County, and Campbell County, Virginia.

Numerous school boards, counties and cities are issuing resolutions against high voltage transmission lines cutting thought their communities.,

The Need for Policy Change

Unlike many environmental contaminants, the United States has never established federal health-based exposure limits for the EMF from powerlines and substations. The history of how this occurred is important because the absence of a health-based limit does not mean the absence of scientific evidence. Rather, it reflects an incomplete federal regulatory process that was never finished, and the power of the electric industry.

The story is long and sordid. The EPA released a draft report in the 90’s that recommended designating powerline-frequency EMFs as a “probable human carcinogen” but that conclusion was deleted from the subsequently released draft, which stated EMFs was a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans. Although expert agencies repeatedly reviewed the EPA draft, it was ultimately shelved and never finalized.

In the mid-1990s, the EPA’s EMF research program and efforts to develop health-based safety standards were fully halted after Congress eliminated funding. As a result, the U.S. never adopted any federal safety limits nor has there been any review of the latest scientific research. In the absence of federal regulations and with limited state regulation, permitting decisions typically rely on industry-developed engineering standards instead of a comprehensive public health science based evaluation. These industry created limits do not protect for health effects of long term exposure.

In my book chapter, “Escalating Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields from Telecommunications and Electricity: Comparing and Contrasting U.S. and International Policies and Approaches to Protecting Public and Environmental Health,” published in The Impact of Anthropogenic Activities on the Natural Environment and Societies during the Contemporary Period, (edited by Carolina Leticia Zilli Vieira. CRC Press, 2026)I examine the lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework for regulating the health effects of powerline frequency EMF in the United States and contrast it with the more protective policies adopted by many countries around the world which have implemented a variety of common sense measures to reduce EMF levels below the 3 or 4 mG magnetic field EMF levels linked to childhood cancer.

• Belgium: In Flanders, new power lines should be avoided near schools and childcare centers, and exposure over homes should be minimized. Year-averaged exposure near new schools and childcare centers should not exceed 4 mG. In Brussels, transformers near areas where children under 15 may be present must maintain a 24-hour average below 4 mG.

• The Netherlands: Since 2005, policies have been in place to reduce ELF-EMF in homes, schools, and kindergartens. In 2013, houses under 380–220 kV lines were bought out because of the ELF EMF exposure. In 2023, based on a scientific literature review and recommendations of the Health Council, the government issued an updated policy on overhead power lines and other electricity infrastructure, like substations, to prevent new situations where people stay for a long time in the area near overhead power lines and where the magnetic field exceeds 4 mG (annual average).

Environmental Health Sciences has a long list of countries here.

It is time for a change. The United States should immediately implement protective setbacks between high-voltage transmission lines and substations and homes, schools, and other places where people live and work.

Please do three things now:

• Download Dr. David Carpenter’s Open Letter Here. Share it with your local officials.

• Subscribe to this Substack. It is always free.

• Stay updated with the latest news and action tools from Environmental Health Sciences’ by joining our EMF Program newsletter.

Learn More

• Science on EMF Health Impacts of Power Lines

• What Policymakers and the Public Can Do and Ask When a Transmission Line or Substation Is Proposed

Read my other related Substack posts

Major Wins for Children’s Health: U.S. School Districts Are Opposing High Voltage Power Lines + the 49ers May Relocate Away From the Substation!

Speed Should Not Come Before Safety: Testimony on Data Center Pollution, Power-Line EMF Health Risks

What the San Francisco 49ers and Data Centers Have in Common: An EMF Transparency Problem (Part 1)

This post is also online at Environmental Health Sciences here.

First, California…

The Temecula Valley Unified School District unanimously adopted a resolution opposing San Diego Gas & Electric’s routing of a 500 kV high voltage transmission line directly behind Vail Ranch Middle School.

Importantly, this resolution lists several scientific research studies that link the EMF emitted by high-voltage power lines to cancer.

The Temecula resolution also references how California’s regulations require a 350-foot setback between schools and 500 kV transmission line easements. California is currently the only state with this important safeguard. However, in the case of this particular proposed 500 kV line, it does not apply. Why? The state regulation is a directive for school districts when they acquire school property, but not for utility companies. A regulatory loophole.

• Download the Resolution of the Temecula Valley Unified School District

Watch a video about the Temecula high-voltage powerline below.

The San Francisco 49ers say they are looking to move.

Meanwhile, the 49ers, whose Santa Clara playing facility is next door to an electric substation, have signaled that they are looking for a new location. They say they have “outgrown” their current site. I believe that the players and staff looked beyond the industry spin and took the time to educate themselves.

YouTube: The 49ers Finally are Acknowledging that the Substation is a Problem

The 49ers can move.

Children often do not have a choice.

Reminder: The Santa Clara Youth Soccer field is also next to the substation. Will the City move these fields also?

Watch a clip of my interview with Dr. Carpenter here.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified ELF-EMF magnetic fields as a “possible” human carcinogen in 2001, based largely on scientific evidence linking residential exposure to high voltage power line magnetic fields to childhood leukemia. Recent studies continue to report the association. In addition, credible peer review published research studies also report associations with other types of cancers, Alzheimer’s, miscarriage and a range of other biological impacts.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast…

The Loudoun County, Virginia, School Board, which was already working to stop a proposed 500 kV transmission line from being routed next to the Rock Ridge High School and Rosa Lee Carter Elementary School, joined forces with a nearby homeowners’ association in an attempt to block the route from running through their neighborhood.

EMF exposure has been one of numerous concerns raised by the residents who argue that the new transmission lines- driven by AI data centers- would place the lines near “sensitive locations,” including an early childhood education center and daycare. Despite this, the route was just approved to cut though a neighborhood. The commission stating that further delay “jeopardizes the provision of reliable electric service,” without addressing that the route itself jeopardizes children’s health. Residents plan to appeal the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Industry-paid consultants spin a fairy tale of EMF safety

In the Loudoun County, Virginia case, the utility hired Gabor Mezei, M.D., Ph.D., from Exponent, a well-known “science-for-hire” product defense firm, to counter EMF safety concerns. During the 1990s, Exponent was retained by the tobacco industry to argue that secondhand smoke was not harmful. Mezei has served as an expert witness in smart meter cases in Maine and Pennsylvania as well as numerous cases involving asbestos and talc. Talc in baby powder has been found to cause cancer in several lawsuits. Johnson & Johnson worked for years to downplay the fact that asbestos was in their baby powder talc.

Before joining Exponent, Mezei worked for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the research arm of the electric utility industry, where he submitted comments to NIOSH questioning the strength of the evidence linking lung cancer to welding-specific exposures of hexavalent chromium, the carcinogen made famous by Erin Brockovich. A classic “create doubt and delay” tactic: using uncertainty to curb regulation, even for known toxic exposures.

In his Virginia testimony, Mezei cited the industry’s IEEE and ICNIRP sky-high EMF limits, which are only for short-term high-intensity effects like nerve stimulation but are not designed to address cancer risk. He then downplayed the peer-reviewed scientific research linking power line EMF to childhood leukemia.

Industry incorrectly states there is “a consensus for safety” with non-ionizing EMFs. If that were true, then why do other countries have policies to reduce EMF to levels below those linked to cancer? The EMF Scientists Appeal includes over 240 scientists calling for more protections. If there is a consensus for safety, then why does the Netherlands buy up houses under high voltage power lines and near substations, stating that:

• See a list of how other countries restrict homes and schools near high voltage power lines to protect children from EMF.

Mezei’s words exemplify the industry playbook. From tobacco to asbestos, lead, PFAS, and EMF, companies spin a fairy tale of safety by bringing forward their consultants to downplay credible science linking exposure to harm and reassure the public. The strategy is simple: create doubt, delay protective regulation, and avoid liability.

Every day that they keep accountability at bay is worth millions of dollars. They know that, with enough time, they might avoid all responsibility through loopholes, federal preemption, or liability shields, exemplified by the Supreme Court’s recent glyphosate ruling.

Hundreds of scientists urge caution with EMFs.

Dr. David Carpenter is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, New York. He received his MD at Harvard and has published over 500 papers on environmental health. His research on EMF and health spans over 4 decades and began when he served as Executive Secretary to the New York State Power Lines Project. He has testified to Congress as well as the President’s Cancer Panel on EMFs, was co-editer of the BioInitiative Report and he now serves as a commissioner of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).

In this video, he shares the results of his published research review, which found that industry-funded studies more often find no effect. Whereas government-funded studies more often find effects. He explains how the U.S. was defunded from the research and never set safety standards.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Local governments are calling for rigorous review.

In Texas, 42 state legislators signed an Amicus brief supporting a motion by American Stewards for Liberty calling for a pause and full review of proposed 765-kV line projects to ensure all alternatives are fully evaluated.

• Read the statement from Texas State Rep. Brad Buckley

In central Virginia, eight out of nine Virginia counties impacted by the 115-mile Joshua Falls to Yeat 765-kV Valley Link Project have formally opposed its approval. This May, a regional coalition of counties submitted a joint multi-county intervention filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which notably includes the Fluvanna, Culpeper, Goochland, Orange, and Louisa County resolutions opposing the project.

Watch one of the community groups public awareness clips.

Orange County sent a letter referencing peer reviewed research stating , “The existence of high voltage power lines is of great concern. Many Orange County residents have voiced grave concerns with the proposed power lines and the potential impact on animals, humans, and natural resources.”

Watch below a clip of a meeting where the company states that the EMF cancer link is a “rumor” and the Virginia official fires back with scientific research studies reporting cancer associations.

The Town of Sterling, Wisconsin, along with several other counties in Wisconsin and Minnesota, have adopted resolutions opposing their proposed 765-kV high-voltage transmission line.

I found numerous school boards opposing irresponsibly placed power lines.

As I delved in, I found several more school boards with formal positions. The FERC filing includes the Orange County School Board opposition letter (page 56). And just as the Louisa County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a resolution in opposition to the Valley Link transmission project, on June 2, the Louisa County Public Schools (LCPS) school board followed as well.

The Prince William County school board also sent correspondence urging Dominion Energy to avoid using school property at their Patriot High School campus, citing a Virginia state guideline that says:

In April, the Florence Independent School Board of Texas registered its opposition to a proposed 765‑kV line that would route near an elementary school, stating:

The Chambersburg Area School Board, Pennsylvania, has been battling a proposed 230-kV high-voltage power line project near its Falling Spring Elementary campus since 2017 and most recently at the packed June 23 meeting they began consideration of a proposal to become a formal intervenor.

High-voltage power lines bring numerous risks.

Communities are raising concerns about children’s health, property values, eminent domain, farmland preservation, noise, safety, impacts on wildlife, visual blight, herbicide use, inadequate public participation, and whether these massive projects are truly necessary.

Fire is also an issue. The California Fire Local 2881 Firefighters’ letter opposed the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink Project because it brings “additional ignition risks in communities that already face the threat of catastrophic wildfire.

This is no longer just a local issue. It is a national issue… and bipartisan.

I have been in touch with families across the country. From West Virginia to Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Georgia, Illinois and Texas, utility companies are aggressively pushing new power lines and substations, routed next to (and sometimes right on top of) homes, farms and schools.

Ansley Brown has brought national attention to Georgia Power's attempt to seize her family's home, and several others, through eminent domain.

Many of these projects involve 765 kV lines- the highest voltage and most powerful lines ever built- carried on massive towers the height of 15- to 20-story buildings. Across party lines- Democrat, Republican Libertarian, Green or Independent, people are coming together.

Image from a Facebook post from the group NO 765kV Line working on the on the MariBell Transmission Project. Table at the farmer’s market in Viroqua, Wisconsin.

Everyone says the same thing. “We are not opposed to technology and of course we all need electricity. But the process needs to be fixed.”

“Build with us, not on top of us” an impacted man from Texas told me.

Video: My testimony to the Montgomery County Council on high voltage transmission lines and health.

We need policies that put children’s health first.

All children deserve safe schools. And of course safe neighborhoods.

All states should, at a minimum:

• Establish minimum setbacks between schools, homes, and high-voltage transmission lines and substations.

• Require independent baseline and projected EMF measurements and full public disclosure from the beginning of the process.

• Prioritize under-grounding and electric grid design that significantly mitigates environmental EMF exposure.

And there is so much more. Stay tuned as I take a deep dive into U.S. state regulation of transmission line EMF, wildlife and agricultural impacts. There are safer alternatives. Solutions exist.

Please do two things now:

• Subscribe to this Substack. It is always free.

• Stay updated with my work at Environmental Health Sciences by joining our EMF Program newsletter.

Learn More

• Science on EMF Health Impacts of Power Lines

• What Policymakers and the Public Can Do and Ask When a Transmission Line or Substation Is Proposed

I am the Director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, a national nonprofit that has worked for years on plastics, pesticides, air pollution, EMFs, and other environmental health exposures.

Data centers are a public health issue because they bring together nearly every type of pollution, affecting communities for miles, not just through the air, land, light, noise, water, and heat-island effects of the facilities themselves, but also through their unchecked lifecycle impacts.

Data centers are driving up PFAS “forever chemical” pollution. Thousands of drinking water wells in North Carolina have already been contaminated with PFAS linked to semiconductor manufacturing. PFAS materials are often used in data centers’ cooling and fire-suppression systems.

Speed should not come before safety.

But there is yet another critical issue: EMFs. The voracious energy demands of data centers require an unprecedented buildout of new electric substations and high-voltage transmission lines, increasing EMF exposure to nearby homes and schools.

This is an EMF meter.

Last month, I measured EMF levels near the San Francisco 49ers’ playing field, which is next door to an electric substation. The team said it had hired an as-yet unnamed expert who concluded that EMF levels were “400 times below the safe zone” and that the issue was a “nothing burger.” But the EMF measurement report was never publicly released. That’s essentially: trust us, we’re the experts.

I recorded EMF levels at the playing field fence line above 10 milligauss, including readings as high as 17 milligauss near the adjacent youth soccer fields.

These EMF levels are well above the 3–4 milligauss levels repeatedly associated with childhood leukemia in published research.

They are also well above levels linked to Alzheimer’s disease and miscarriage.

And they are well above the levels that several countries use as a threshold for homes and schools.

Watch the video of EMF measurements near the 49ers playing field.

Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, published a review of the peer-reviewed science on power-line EMFs and concluded that industry-funded studies more often found no effects, whereas independent studies more often reported effects. He concluded that there is “strong evidence linking EMF exposure to cancers beyond leukemia, particularly brain and breast cancer.”

Dr. Henry Lai’s latest analysis found that the majority of peer-reviewed research over the last four decades has reported effects: 90% for oxidative stress, 84% for genetic effects, and 92% for neurological effects.

• Read Dr. Lai’s analysis on the science website of Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley here.

Yet the United States does not have any federal safety limits for the EMFs emitted by substations and power lines. None. In the 1990s, the EPA’s work to develop health-protective safety standards for power-line EMFs, as well as cell-tower radiation exposure, was defunded and never completed. (See Microwave News EPA’s EMR Programs Face Budget Ax here)

But industry-tied groups did set limits, between 2,000 and 9,100 milligauss, while 3 to 4 milligauss is the level repeatedly associated with childhood leukemia.

Their limits are designed only to protect against the effects of short-term exposure, specifically nerve stimulation, not long-term health risks.

Why? Because, just as the tobacco and asbestos industries did for years, they claim that cancer causation is “not established.” Then they cite expert panels that, in many cases, were stacked with industry-friendly scientists relying on industry-funded research.

Hundreds of scientists say public exposure should be reduced, not increased.

• See the EMF Scientists Appeal.

• See the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).

EMF safety is a house of cards. A fairy tale.

And there is more. A Bloomberg analysis of more than 770,000 residential sensors found degraded power quality from harmonic distortion within 20 miles of data center clusters, creating electrical pollution in the home as well.

Before any data center is approved, the public deserves a full accounting and risk-mitigation plan addressing EMF levels, harmonics, air pollution, PFAS materials, wastewater contaminants, noise, infrasound, light pollution, and e-waste management. Until such regulatory safeguards, full transparency, independent oversight, and ongoing monitoring are in place, a two-year moratorium is the only defensible course of action.

• Read an overview of the scientific research at Environmental Health Sciences here.

Share this information

• Youtube video of testimony

• Facebook video of testimony to share

• LinkedIn video

Stay updated with my work at Environmental Health Sciences

Subscribe to our EMF Program Newsletter here

Let’s start with the San Francisco 49ers.

It all started in January 2026, when Peter Cowan’s Substack post questioned whether the 49ers high injury rate could be due to the EMF exposure from the electric substation adjacent to the team’s practice facility. Cowan’s X post got 22 million views. The viral controversy appeared settled last month when the team stated they hired an expert to take professional measurements which concluded levels were “400x lower than the safe zone.” The 49ers general manager, John Lynch, called the “injury conspiracy a ‘big nothing burger.”

However, the consultant’s report and the EMF measurements used to support those safety claims were not publicly released.

How does this relate to data centers?

The 49ers substation EMF transparency issue mirrors a growing national issue as communities are facing an onslaught of new substations and power lines to serve energy-guzzling AI data centers without full public disclosure of the science on increased EMF exposure levels.

Back to the 49ers.

Because the team’s EMF report was never made public, I became curious. I traveled to Levi’s Stadium and measured magnetic field EMF levels outside the team’s practice facility and Santa Clara Youth Soccer fields.

Watch my Youtube video here with measurements.

The levels I recorded are well above EMF levels of 3-4 mG linked to childhood leukemia and other health effects in published scientific research. The measurements exceeded 10 mG near the substation and practice field and were as high as 17 mG near the youth soccer fields. I found 20–45 mG at ground level in some areas.

See below this post for links and references to the full peer-reviewed studies.

Children are playing for hours on youth soccer fields next to this electric substation, workers are spending their careers around it. If the professional measurements truly support claims of safety, then why not release the report. Parents, workers, and the public deserve facts, not secrecy.

Cowan remarked on the 49ers “nothing burger” EMF report:

Who is being protected by withholding the report from the public?

This is not just about football: Data centers are driving up EMF exposure in several communities.

AI data-center-driven substations and high voltage transmission lines are being built near homes, schools, parks, and athletic fields without communities being fully informed of the fact that scientific evidence has reported increased risks. Utilities are also increasing the capacity of existing power lines to carry substantially more electricity and these “upgrades” can also increase EMF exposures along the transmission corridors, which can be far away from the data centers they are running power to.

A Bloomberg report with over 770,000 sensors found degraded power quality, meaning harmonics, another kind of EMF pollution referred to as dirty electricity, up to 50 miles away from data center clusters. More on that here.

I have first-hand witnessed communities misleadingly being told that the EMF levels are safe. But without a federal EMF safety standard in the United States, what does ‘safe’ actually mean?”

There are no federal U.S. health-based human exposure limits for EMF exposure.

In the U.S. the EPA was defunded on developing safety limits for non-ionizing electromagnetic fields decades ago. There is simply no official benchmark for policymakers or the public to use. As a result, consultants often claim EMF exposures are “so low” and thousands of times below “harmful” levels, but those comparisons are based on industry IEEE limits, which have remained largely unchanged for decades and are focused on preventing short-term nerve stimulation effects (from very high levels). ICNIRP limits are also often put forward, which, like the IEEE limits, are not designed to protect against the risk of cancer or disease from long-term exposures.

Industry studies find “no effect” more often.

David Carpenter, MD, who recently retired as Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, published a review of the research showing that the source of funding significantly affects study findings when it comes to powerline EMF. He concluded there is “strong evidence linking EMF exposure to cancers beyond leukemia, particularly brain and breast cancer.”

Dr. Henry Lai just related his latest analysis showing the majority of peer-reviewed studies published since 1990 on non-ionizing EMF have reported effects.

• Oxidative Effects: 90% (n=319) of 353 ELF/static EMF papers oxidative effects (or free radical) published since 1990 reported significant effects.

• Genetic Effects: 84% (n=363) of 424 ELF/static EMF genetic effects papers published since 1990 reported significant effects including 92% (n=232) of 252 studies of gene expression.

• Neurological Effects: 92% (n=364) of 397 ELF/static EMF neurological papers published since 2007 reported significant effects.

• Reproduction and Development Impacts: 78% (n=82) of 105 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development published since 1990 reported significant effects.

If I had a substation or high voltage power line going up in my back yard, the relevant question for me would not be how the EMF measurements compare to industry’s IEEE exposure limit, but how the EMF levels compare to levels associated with health effects in published scientific research.

It is essential that communities are informed of the actual EMF level increases the project will create. The data should be publicly available.

Independent scientists caution that IEEE limits do not ensure safety.

I reached out to several expert scientists regarding EMF levels above 3 mG. Here is what they said.

Joel Moskowitz PHD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley BIO

David O. Carpenter, MD, Vincent O’Leary Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University at Albany BIO

Dr. Carpenter previously served as Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, a World Health Organization Collaborating Center focused on the health impacts of environmental pollutants. Dr. Carpenter has worked on power line EMF research for over 40 years, including leading the New York Power Line Project, testifying before the President’s Cancer Panel, and publishing extensively on the health effects of EMF and other toxic agents.

Paul Héroux, PhD, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University

EMF Levels Associated with Cancer and Other Health Effects in Scientific Research

The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer classified ELF-EMF magnetic fields as a “possible” human carcinogen in 2001, based largely on evidence linking power line exposure of 3-4 mG to childhood leukemia. See 2001 Press release here. Since then, additional scientific studies have reported associations between power-line EMF exposure and cancer, as well as other health effects.

How do the Santa Clara EMF measurements compare to science?

• 1-3 mG: Increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s death in Swiss study of over 3.5 M people. LINK

• 1.6 mG: Kaiser Permanente research reported an increased risk of poor sperm quality, and those exposed for more than six hours per day were three to four times more likely to experience reduced fertility. LINK, KP Press Release

• 2.5 mG: Kaiser Permanente research found an increased risk for miscarriage. LINK

• 3-4 mG: The level that several European countries set for homes and schools due to the science on childhood cancer. LINK

• 4 mG: Increased childhood leukemia cancer risk in scientific reviews. 2022 systematic review, 2021 meta-analysis, 2019 review that also analyzed funding source and found industry-funded studies more often did not report effects.

• 4 mG: A 2025 study of children in Mexico City found a significantly increased risk of central nervous system tumors. LINK

• 6 mG: Canadian health agencies found men occupationally exposed to 6 mG or greater had an elevated risk of breast cancer, and those exposed for 30 years or more had nearly a threefold increased risk compared with men exposed to less than 3 mG. LINK

• 9,200 mG: 9,200 mG: IEEE limit (industry group) based on effects of short-term exposure only. The IEEE states the effects of long-term exposure are “not established” and thus are not considered in the limits. LINK

If you go to the IEEE standard for magnetic fields, you will see they have a disclaimer right at the beginning that “IEEE Standards do not guarantee or ensure safety, security, health, or environmental protection…” and then they say in all caps, “in no event shall IEEE be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, ….damage arising in any way out of the publication, use of, or reliance upon any standard.”

So who is liable? Who is responsible here?

High voltage power lines are not allowed near schools in California.

California code states regarding schools, “The property line of the site, even if it is a joint use agreement as described in subsection (o) of this section, shall be at least the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements:

• 100 feet for 50-133 kV line.

• 150 feet for 220-230 kV line.

• 350 feet for 500-550 kV line.”

Join Our Petition to the NFL and Santa Clara City Officials For Full Transparency

We respectfully call on the NFL, the San Francisco 49ers, and Santa Clara City officials to publicly release the full report of EMF measurements in the practice facility and playing fields located near the electrical substation adjacent to the 49ers training facility and Youth Soccer fields located at the Levi’s Stadium.

Sign the Petition to the NFL

Whats Next?

In Part 2 of this investigation, I’ll take a closer look at a data center powerline case in Loudoun County, Virginia, where homeowners and the School Board are challenging a proposed 500-kV transmission line.

One of the electric utility’s expert witnesses is an Exponent scientist who has testified not only in power-line EMF cases, but also in legal proceedings for asbestos, talc and hexavalent chromium, the carcinogen made famous by Erin Brockovich.) He argues that the projected EMF levels remain below the IEEE and ICNIRP exposure limits. Most people, unaware of the full body of EMF research, the absence of a federal EMF health standard, and the fact that no U.S. health agency, nor the World Health Organization, has comprehensively reviewed magnetic field EMF and health for decades, would likely interpret his testimony as meaning the exposures are safe.

More on that soon.

Science Resources on Health Impacts of Data Centers:

• Data Center Health and Environmental Impact Overview: From Air Pollution to Water Contamination and EMF

• Data Center EMF Radiation Risks Explained

• AI Data Centers, Dirty Power and Grid Harmonics

• EMF and Bees

• The Health Effects of EMF from Power Lines and Electricity

Scientific References From the Graph

Below are just the research studies that were referenced on the graph. Read more here.

Sperm Quality

• Exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of poor sperm quality Reproductive Toxicology

• Kaiser Permanente Division of Research Press Release

Dementia and Alzheimer’s

• Long-term residential magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative disease mortality: An 18-year nationwide cohort study in Switzerland, Environment International

• Residence near power lines and mortality from neurodegenerative diseases: longitudinal study of the Swiss population. American Journal of Epidemiology

• Occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and risk of Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurotoxicology.

• Long-term exposure to magnetic fields and the risks of Alzheimer’s disease and breast cancer: Further biological research. Pathophysiology

Childhood Leukemia

• Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies, Reviews on Environmental Health.

• Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS 1

• Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: A meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls Leukemia Research

• Residential exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines and risk of childhood leukemia. Environmental Research

• Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood B-Lineage Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in a City With High Incidence of Leukemia and Elevated Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields, Bioelectromagnetics

• Acute childhood leukemias and exposure to magnetic fields generated by high voltage overhead power lines - a risk factor in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev.

• Childhood leukemia and magnetic fields in Japan: A case-control study of childhood leukemia and residential power-frequency magnetic fields in Japan International Journal of Cancer

• Residential exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines and risk of childhood leukemia in an Italian population, Population Medicine

• Exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields and risk of childhood leukemia, American Journal of Epidemiology

Miscarriage (Prenatal Exposure)

• Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study, Scientific Reports

Asthma (Prenatal Exposure)

• Maternal Exposure to Magnetic Fields During Pregnancy in Relation to the Risk of Asthma in Offspring. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

Obesity (Prenatal Exposure)

• A Prospective Study of In-utero Exposure to Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Obesity. Scientific Reports

Brain Tumors

• Residential proximity to power lines and risk of brain tumor in the general population. Environmental Research

• Power-Frequency Magnetic Fields and Childhood Brain Tumors: A Case-Control Study in Japan, Journal of Epidemiology

Industry Funding Impacts Results

• Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results Environmental Research

Skin Cancer

• Residential extremely low frequency magnetic fields and skin cancer. Occupational and Environmental Medicine

• Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). International Journal of Oncology

Peter Cowan’s Substack Posts

• The Electrical Substation, Deflategate, and an ‘Independent Scientist’

• Harvard-Trained Inflammation Researcher Confirms Plausibility of 49ers EMF Injury Hypothesis

• Could Chronic EMF Exposure from a Nearby Substation Be Causing the 49ers’ Epidemic of Tendon Ruptures?

Disclaimer: The EMF measurements reported here are provided for informational purposes and transparency. I am not offering an opinion as to whether the measured levels are safe or unsafe, nor am I making a health risk assessment. My purpose is simply to document the magnetic field EMF measurements I recorded and to compare them with levels discussed in published scientific research. The professional EMF report supposedly conducted robust measurements all over the facility. Readers should draw their own conclusions regarding the significance of these measurements and how they want to consider the issue.

June 3, 2026: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr proposed new rules as part of his “Build America Agenda” to eliminate local government authority that constrains the deployment of modern, high-speed wireline infrastructure.”

Theodora Scarato, Director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, an environmental health non-profit, states:

While Americans are rising up and fighting data centers in local communities nationwide, most remain unaware of the numerous federal proposals quietly advancing in Washington that would clear the path for an unprecedented buildout of AI infrastructure. The fiber networks, power lines, electric substations, cell towers, “small” cells, and data centers needed to support artificial intelligence and future 6G networks are being fast-tracked, while local state, city and town authorities and public participation in the process are systematically being stripped away.

The FCC press release states their proposal “aims to cut red tape and excessive fees” referring to the local government process as “an onerous process” that “wastes federal resources.”

What is this really about? It is about AI and data centers. Local government oversight is being dismantled to accelerate the deployment of the fiber optic infrastructure needed to support artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and future 6G networks.

• This connection was made explicit in a letter sent by major U.S. telecom and wireless associations supporting Congressional bill H.R. 2289, the American Broadband Act, which would have stripped local and state government authority for both wireless and wireline projects. The letter states that the bill’s measures were ‘urgent because it directly supports America’s position in the global AI race,’ framing the deregulation and infrastructure acceleration as a matter of geopolitical competition with China.

• CTIA, the leading lobbying association for the U.S. wireless telecommunications sector, just released a report and hosted a conference entitled ‘AI and Wireless’ where top telecom executives and policymakers emphasized that AI growth and data centers depend on unprecedented increases in cell towers, wireless network and fiber infrastructure.

Chairman Carr continues to act recklessly, ignoring the American people. Congress was unable to pass H.R. 2289, despite Republican control of the House and strong support from the telecommunications industry. Yet now the FCC, with only three sitting commissioners, is pushing the agenda through regulation. That should concern every American who values democracy.

According to the FCC press release, the FCC Notice would seek comment on codifying rules that would:

• Give state and local governments only 120 days to review wireline telecommunications applications, after which delays could be presumed unlawful, creating pressure to approve complex projects before communities have adequate time to evaluate impacts.

• Restrict local governments’ fees to recovering only narrowly defined direct costs and establish FCC “safe harbor” fee limits, likely shifting infrastructure review and oversight costs from industry to taxpayers.

• Count in-kind requirements imposed by local governments toward those fee limits, reducing communities’ ability to negotiate public benefits, infrastructure improvements, or other measures designed to offset project impacts.

• Prohibit local governments from imposing additional requirements on telecommunications infrastructure, further limiting local oversight and regulatory authority.

Taken together, these FCC proposals would significantly reduce the ability of state and local governments to manage telecommunications infrastructure projects and protect community interests.

The costs of this aggressive deployment will be borne by local taxpayers, not industry.

What’s Next?

Carr will present the proposal at the agency’s June 25 meeting and with just three Commissioners, you can be sure it will pass. Then, once the text is officially published in the Federal Register later this summer, a formal public comment window will open (typically lasting 30 to 60 days). Perfect timing for those on vacation at the beach.

Cell towers do not belong on school property. Our children deserve safe learning environments. Research finds that children are more vulnerable to cell tower radiation because they absorb this radiation deeper into their still developing brains and bodies, and school boards nationwide from LA to Loudoun County, as well as entire countries, have banned cell towers at schools.

Now, when I asked T-Mobile for the Wheaten High School cell tower radiation measurements, they said it was proprietary. When I asked MCPS, they told me it would cost $500 along with other basic information.

This is the cell tower at Wheaton High School in Montgomery County MD.

Fairfax County Schools post all the recent cell tower radiation measurements online, and my Freedom of Information requests reveal that at several schools, the levels have significantly increased over the last decade since the towers were erected.

A 2022 review on cell tower health effects published in found the majority of studies found effects including cancer, and a just published analysis in Environmental Health by a 28-year former NIH scientist, Dr. Melnik, and Dr. Moscowitz of UC Berkeley found, using EPA methodology, FCC limits needed to be reduced by at least 200 times to maintain an acceptable cancer risk based on the US government $30 million National Toxicology Program study, and by 4,200 times based on the Ramzini Institute studies.

Now, compliance with US FCC limits does not ensure safety. These limits are unchanged and unscientifically reviewed since 1996. They only protect against short-term effects, not long-term effects like cancer. Other countries have limits which are 10 to 100 times more stringent, meaning lower- allowing less radiation- than what is permitted in the United States.

Hundreds of scientists caution that exposure should be reduced. Numerous examples here.

It is time to overhaul MCPS cell tower policies in order to ensure transparency and safety for students, teachers, and staff.

Thank you.

Blair High School (Montgomery County MD) students investigated the issue of wireless infrastructure in MCPS schools and communities in their article “Towering Conflicts: Inside the Fight Over MCPS Cell Towers.”

What Parents and Communities Can Do About School Cell Towers

• Advocate for Protective School Policies: Work with school boards to pass policies prohibiting cell towers and wireless infrastructure on school property.

• Educate Decision Makers: Share scientific research and public health information with school officials, elected leaders, PTAs, and community members about children’s unique vulnerability to RF radiation exposure. Check out our factsheets here.

• Request Transparency: Ask for RF radiation measurements, lease agreements, and public meetings with the entire school community plus neighborhoods before towers are approved.

If you want to learn more about how communities stop cell towers at schools, Environmental Health Sciences has developed a Cell Tower Toolkit with information, research, and advocacy resources available here.

Cell Tower at School Toolkit

About Theodora Scarato

Theodora Scarato is Director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences. Decades ago, she worked in Montgomery County Public Schools as a social worker directing an intensive therapy program in a special education school serving middle school and high school students.

Her latest publication in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms” documents the history of wireless regulation in the US, the regulatory gaps, loopholes, decades of regulatory capture and her freedom of information requests that found the federal government is withholding, critical, consumer information.

This week’s filing of a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the U.S. FCC to comply with the federal court’s 2021 order in our lawsuit, requiring the agency to address the last thirty years of scientific evidence and justify its decades-old cell tower, cell phone and wireless exposure limits. The FCC’s years of inaction following the court’s mandate is not just a regulatory delay; it’s a major public health policy failure.

We are living through one of the largest technological infrastructure expansions in human history. The US government should be ensuring its cell tower and wireless radio-frequency (RF)radiation limits are adequately protective as a top national priority. Instead, the FCC has aggressively and recklessly pushed to accelerate the densification of wireless infrastructure.

Five Years After Court Order, The FCC Still Fails to Ensure Proper Review of Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety

In 2021, the FCC was ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to explain how its decades-old cell tower, cell phone and wireless radiation exposure limits adequately protect human health and the environment in light of the scientific evidence submitted to the record. The court found the FCC’s refusal to update its 1996 wireless exposure limits to be “arbitrary and capricious” and specifically mandated the agency to review evidence regarding:

• impacts on children

• long-term exposure,

• non-cancer impacts (such as to the brain, immune and reproductive system)

• environmental impacts (birds, bees and trees)

• and consider technological developments since 1996.

Further, the agency was ordered to explain how its premarket RF radiation compliance testing procedures, which evaluate cell phones at separation distances away from the body, remain adequate in light of today’s real-world usage patterns, where people routinely carry phones in pockets and maintain close body contact with devices during near-constant daily exposure.

The fact that five years have passed without meaningful FCC action to address the issue of safety or respond to the court is egregious.

While the public believes the fairy tale of cell phone safety, and the industry-fueled mirage that federal agencies are regularly reviewing the science and ensuring that the public and environment are protected from this growing environmental pollution, the fact is that no federal agency has shown review of the totality of the up-to-date scientific research on wireless health effects.

I have filed hundreds of documents to the FCC since the 2021 court decision, including dozens of new peer-reviewed published scientific research studies linking exposure to harmful effects in anticipation of this and future lawsuits.

They were informed. They did nothing.

The U.S. FCC limits for cell tower radiation exposure allow radiation 10 to 100 times more than several other countries. The image below is from my recent paper “U.S. Policy on Wireless Technologies and Public Health Protection: Regulatory Gaps and Proposed Reforms” which details how the US EPA was defunded on setting health based limits and instead the FCC adopted limits by industry military filled groups in 1996.

A New Scientific Analysis Finds FCC Wireless Radiation Limits Should Be Reduced 200-Fold

Just this month, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) sent a scientific letter to U.S. Senate and House leadership and to the FCC Commissioner stating that Congress and the FCC ensure a formal review that takes into account the most recent scientific evidence. They highlight the recent peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Environmental Health co-authored by Dr. Ronald L. Melnick, a retired 28 year toxicologist from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Taking results from a $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study, the researchers applied standard procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and concluded that current FCC and ICNIRP public exposure limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times. (Read the ICBE-EMF Press Release here).

The ICBE-EMF states in its letter to Congress:

“Allowing the widespread deployment of cell towers near homes and schools without first assessing real-world RF exposures and conducting health studies, particularly on long-term effects in children and vulnerable adults, would represent a failure of public health protection.”

The ICBE-EMF states the FCC’s push to fast-track cell towers in its proposal “Build America” effectively treats American communities as test subjects in an uncontrolled national radiation experiment, one conducted without consent, without monitoring, and without updated safety limits. If Congress or the FCC proceed to fast-track cell towers, they will knowingly expose millions to higher levels of RF radiation at levels that multiple peer-reviewed studies associate with increased cancer risk, and neurological, immune, and reproductive harm.”

The FCC Withheld Its Own Laboratory Cell Phone Radiation Test Findings

One of the key issues in the case was the FCC’s antiquated cell phone testing procedures. Phones are not premarket RF radiation tested touching the body, the way people use phones today. My FOIA requests revealed that FCC’s own laboratory testing found that several popular cell phones exceeded federal radiation exposure limits when used in close body contact positions. Yet the FCC withheld these findings from the court and the public, even though the court proceedings directly raised questions about whether existing cell phone testing procedures accurately reflect real-world exposure conditions.

Children Face Unprecedented Wireless Radiation Exposure Never Considered in the FCC’s 1996 Limits

Children today are growing up immersed in levels of wireless radiation exposure never imagined when the FCC adopted its current limits in 1996. Today’s homes, schools, and communities are filled with dozens of wireless devices, often alongside nearby cell towers. My FOIA requests show RF levels at several schools with cell towers are significantly increasing.

Scientific research shows how children absorb more of the radiation from cell phones as well as cell towers when compared to adults. Most of the wireless frequencies now in widespread commercial use simply did not exist or were not widely deployed when the FCC established its current exposure guidelines nearly three decades ago. With no premarket safety testing and no robust or transparent post-market compliance, our children’s health is at serious risk.

The Bottom Line

The FCC must be held accountable. It’s time to move this issue forward.

The FCC should not be aggressively moving to fast-track the densification of cell towers across communities nationwide while failing to address the fundamental question raised by the court: whether the 1996 exposure limits for cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi, and wireless networks adequately protect the public and our environment.

A Note of Caution: The FCC is almost certainly preparing a response, one that will likely rely heavily on industry-friendly and funded scientists presented as independent public health experts, a strategy long used to manufacture doubt and delay meaningful regulatory action. In a future Substack post, I will examine how industry influence has shaped wireless radiation policy for decades and some of the industry’s latest moves.

Want To Read More About the FCC Failures?

The paper “U.S. Policy on Wireless Technologies and Public Health Protection: Regulatory Gaps and Proposed Reforms” traces the history of EPA wireless and EMF radiation research, documents the decades of regulatory capture, the years of industry influence, and outlines key deficiencies in both the exposure limits themselves, its compliance testing procedures, and their inadequate oversight activities. It concludes by providing much-needed policy recommendations for the federal government to modernize oversight, transparency, and public health safeguards.

Environmental Health Sciences also has a great overview of the FCC’s policy failures here.

Stay Informed and Join Our Efforts

The Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences newsletter provides breaking science, news, fact sheets, and action toolkits on wireless radiation and public health.

Join Our Newsletter

Who is being sued

• Meta (Instagram & Facebook)

• Google (YouTube)

• TikTok and Snap, which have already settled in some cases.

What the allegations claim

Plaintiffs, including hundreds of families and school districts, argue that the digital platforms were specifically designed to be addictive and that this intentional design has resulted in a youth mental health crisis, injury, and deaths.

The complaints include claims of:

• Algorithmic features like infinite scrolling, autoplay, and recommendation feeds that maximize engagement

• Use of notifications and reward mechanics that exploit young users’ developing brains

• Resulting harms such as anxiety, depression, body image disorders, self-harm, and suicidality among children.

These lawsuits characterize the platforms’ design choices as defective products, similar to claims made in the historic litigation against tobacco companies.

Lawsuits claim that social media use contributed to self-harm and suicide.

Several lawsuits involve the deaths of teenagers whose families allege that intensive social media use contributed to self-harm or suicide. Plaintiffs claim the teens were exposed to repeated algorithm-driven content related to depression, self-harm, or suicide, and that the material presented increased once the child interacted with similar content. They also argue that design features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and notifications prolonged exposure and reinforced compulsive use. Families allege that the companies knew internally that their platforms could harm teen mental health, and yet they made the decision to design algorithms that prioritize engagement and advertising revenue over safety.

Families allege, for example:

• Instagram amplified eating-disorder and self-harm content.

• Snapchat’s design features contributed to compulsive use tied to emotional distress.

• TikTok’s algorithms pushed self-harm content to vulnerable minors.

• Tech companies failed to prevent contact with sexual predators.

In response, the tech companies counter that:

• There is no recognized medical diagnosis of social media addiction,

• Correlation is not causation. There is no clear scientific consensus that social media “causes” addiction.

• The problem is not the product design, but the content produced, which is protected under the First Amendment and Section 230. Section 230 shields and protects online platforms from being liable for the content generated by third parties.

• Responsibility for children’s use lies with parents and guardians, not platforms.

• Mental health outcomes are influenced by many complex factors, including family environment, preexisting mental health conditions, and social issues and thus, causation cannot be attributed solely to platform design.

Numerous efforts to educate on holding Big Tech accountable

In addition to lawsuits, numerous initiatives are educating the public about Big Tech harms, children and screens. Some excellent sites include Fairplay, Design it for Us, the Heat Initiative, Scrolling to Death, Children and Screens and the Social Media Victims Law Center.

Watch this PSA on AI and Child Safety about young lives lost after interacting with AI chatbots.

Why are social media companies liable?

The Social Media Victims Law Center, a law firm representing more than 1,200 parties in social media addiction lawsuits, has an excellent webpage breaking the lawsuits down and explaining why they believe liability lies with the technology companies.

“Plaintiffs allege that the social media companies owed a heightened duty of care because the complaints involve minors. According to the complaint, the social media companies knew or should have known that their products could cause harm, yet they failed to mitigate the risk of harm or warn users about the risk. The complaints in the current lawsuits seek to hold social media companies liable on the basis on strict liability and negligence for the following:

• Algorithms that promote compulsive use

• Never-ending feeds

• Lack of warnings when users are signing up

• Lack of any method to monitor and self-restrict length and frequency of use

• Barriers to voluntarily deleting or deactivating accounts

• Lack of meaningful age verification processes

• Lack of effective parental controls or monitoring mechanisms

• Lack of labels on filtered images and videos

• Intrusive notification timing designed to lure users back to the platforms”

-Social Media Addiction Lawsuit - 2026 Update

The lawsuits moving forward

These lawsuits are being compared to Big Tobacco-era litigation, and favorable rulings could lead to landmark corporate accountability.

In Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, a bellwether case in front of a state court is moving forward in which plaintiffs argue that Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube deliberately designed their platforms to addict and harm children. They state that the algorithm-driven features, infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications were engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of youth mental health leading to depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, reportedly settled for undisclosed sums before trial.

Opening arguments began in early February 2026. As detailed in AP “Google, Meta, push back on addiction claims in landmark social media trial” the Plaintiff’s lawyer W. Mark Lanier stated the case will be as “easy as ABC” — which stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He said Meta and Google, “two of the richest corporations in history,” have “engineered addiction in children’s brains,” creating an addictive ‘digital casino.” In response, META attorney Paul Schmidt spent most of his opening focused on the plaintiff’s personal troubles including body image issues, bullying, and a volatile home life, particularly a troubled relationship with her mother. Schmidt presented 10,000 pages of medical records, saying that within all of those records, jurors would not see a “single example” of KGM being addicted to YouTube.

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, hundreds of related lawsuits have been consolidated into MDL No. 3047 – Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation. The plaintiff lawsuits, brought on behalf of children and adolescents, as well as the school district suits, are against five major social media platforms: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Google’s YouTube, ByteDance’s TikTok, and Snapchat. They argue that the companies defectively designed their platforms to create compulsive use in minors and failed to warn users of risks.

In fact, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits alleging that Meta harmed youth mental health through addictive design choices on Instagram and Facebook. The states argue that Meta misled the public about risks to teens while prioritizing engagement and profit. As detailed in a KCRA 3 Report, the majority of state AG lawsuits are now consolidated in federal court in Oakland, California and in 2024, a judge ruled that these states could proceed with most of their claims, specifically those involving misleading statements made by Meta regarding the safety of its platforms. A major federal trial representing school districts is scheduled to begin in June 2026

In the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit alleging that Meta failed to adequately protect children from sexual exploitation. As detailed by AP News in “New Mexico lawsuit accuses Meta of failing to protect children from sexual exploitation online” prosecution attorney Donald Migliori, in his opening statement, said Meta misrepresented the safety of its platforms and engineered its algorithms to keep young people online while knowing that children were at risk of sexual exploitation on social media.

Here are few PSAs regarding social media and child sexual exploitation.

Watch the Senate Judiciary hearing on Online Child Sexual Exploitation from January 2024.

So what about the risk to children’s health from cell phone radiation?

Theodora Scarato MSW, Director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences stated:

“Parents posit that companies have created a harmful product by design. It does not take a stretch to see how companies are also failing children when it comes to protecting children from the risk of cell phone radiation.

Just like Big Tobacco did, technology companies are using a similar playbook to deflect responsibility from their product. The current social media litigation centers on algorithms and failure to protect children, but it raises the question: what other health and safety risks are associated with prolonged cell phone and digital device use?

Scientific research into the health effects of chronic cell phone and cell tower radiation exposure is ever mounting. Safety is not assured, especially for children. Children absorb higher levels of cell phone and cell tower radiation into their brains and bodies compared to adults and they are far more vulnerable to the effects. Studies have reported increased cancer, genetic effects, the induction of oxidative stress, memory damage, and impacts to brain development and to the reproductive system.

We expect future lawsuits to expand beyond screen time and platform design to include injuries to children from wireless radiation exposure. It is only a matter of time.”

I just presented on this issue at the American Public Health Association, highlighting how Montgomery County exemplifies a national trend in which schools are treated as cheap, convenient real estate for the telecommunications industry. There is an an unequal distribution of cell towers across the county’s 25 high school campuses. Schools serving larger populations of low-income students, measured by participation in the Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FARMS) program, are more likely to host cell towers on their property. Using MCPS data on FARMS rates for the 2022-2023 school year I found:

• MCPS high schools with cell towers have an average FARMS rate of 51.88%

• MCPS high schools without towers have an average FARMS rate of 30.69%

It is long past time for a change.
Children deserve protection.

Cell towers are not safe. Cell towers on school property bring many health, safety, and liability risks, from fire, hazardous materials on site, to the fall zone and property value devaluation which impacts school funding. Schools exist to protect children and support learning, not to serve as long-term RF radiation exposure sites for commercial, industrial cell towers whose “safety” limits have not been updated in nearly 30 years. In Montgomery County, cell towers are even considered HAZMAT sites due to the hazardous chemicals at the tower compound. Plus, cell towers emit RF radiation, linked to numerous harmful effects in several peer reviewed and published studies.

A 2022 review examined research on people living near cell towers and wireless antenna sites and found the majority of studies reported impacts, primarily radiofrequency sickness, cancer, and altered biochemical markers.

Read more studies here.

Children absorb higher rates of RF radiation and are biologically more vulnerable to the RF radiation emitted by cell towers. Scientific studies, expert recommendations, and international policies increasingly support stronger protections and greater setbacks for cell towers from schools.

Other School Districts Have Banned New Cell Towers- Why Hasn’t MCPS?

Across the country, school boards are stepping up. New cell towers on school property have been banned or restricted in districts including Los Angeles, Palo Alto and Temecula Valley Unified in California to Loudoun County, Virginia.

These districts recognized that precaution, transparency, and public trust matter—especially when it comes to children.

MCPS must do the same.

I formally requested that the Board overhaul its current cell tower siting, leasing, and oversight process, which is unsafe, deficient, and non-transparent.

U.S. RF Radiation Limits Are Outdated and Inadequate

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission allows radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposures from cell towers that are 10 to 100 times higher than limits set in several other countries.

Why?

Because U.S. federal RF exposure limits have not been updated since 1996.

These limits only protect against short-term heating effects. They do not account for long-term health risks, including impacts to:

• Cancer risk

• Brain development

• Reproductive health

• Immune system function

“FCC RF radiation exposure standards are for acute short-term thermal effects…but today’s exposures are long-term, low-level, chronic. Any biological effects below that thermal threshold are simply unregulated.” -Amicus Brief by the Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council

Children are simply not protected under the current antiquated regulatory framework.

I Sued the U.S. Government Over This Failure

I, and others, challenged this regulatory failure in federal court. We won. In 2021, a federal appeals court ordered the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to explain how its RF radiation limits adequately protect the public, especially children, from long-term exposure (and much more).

Nearly five years later, the FCC has still failed to respond to the court’s order. If cell tower RF radiation is so safe then why can’t the FCC simply explain how they know this?

This is not a minor oversight. It is a profound regulatory breakdown.

Given this failure at the federal level, local school boards have a responsibility to act.

Parents have a right to know what their children are being exposed to—on school grounds, every day.

“Proprietary” Data Should Not Trump Children’s Health and Safety

T-Mobile has stated to me that it conducts regular RF compliance testing. However, when I requested the RF radiation reports for Wheaton High School, I was told the data was “proprietary.”

Let that sink in.

Commercial telecommunications equipment is installed on school grounds, exposing children to continuous RF radiation, yet parents and the public are denied access to the actual exposure measurements.

This lack of transparency would be unacceptable in any other context involving children’s health. The failure is on our side though. It should have been required as part of the deal.

Other Countries Monitor RF Radiation at Schools. The U.S. Does Not.

In several other countries, continuous RF radiation monitoring at schools is regularly conducted. Yet, as detailed in my recently published paper “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms,” here in the United States:

• There is no national RF measuring or monitoring program.

• There is no pre-market safety testing.

• There is no post market medical survellience.

• There is no federal oversight ensuring compliance.

This regulatory vacuum leaves children, teachers and staff unprotected. Cell towers do not belong on school grounds.

A Full Airing of the Cell Tower and Children’s Health Issue is Needed at MCPS

I submitted extensive written testimony to MCPS documenting these concerns and providing policy recommendations.

MCPS should affirm that student health, equity, and safety outweigh commercial revenue considerations and at a minimum:

1. Adopt a ban on new cell tower and wireless infrastructure leases on school property.

2. Transparently post all the cell tower information for the county and schools with cell towers, along with the feeder schools.

3. Ensure yearly RF radiation measurements for all sites transparently posted in an accessible way.

4. RF radiation compliance reports should measure locations throughout the school and outdoor areas, rather than just simulations.

5. Revisit the cell tower approval process and oversight policies.

If you want a deep dive into the health and safety risks of cell towers near schools, watch my cell towers master class below.

And there is so much more. Be sure to join our Wireless and EMF Program newsletter. Here is the link.

In order to fully address the issue of cell tower and cell phone wireless radiation health risk, an overhaul of the broken U.S. regulatory framework is needed. Scientists have been working on this issue for decades.

Cell phone radiation is an environmental pollutant that has been ignored for far too long. Hundreds of scientists and physicians are calling for stronger safeguards to protect children, based on an ever-growing body of scientific evidence pointing to cell phone radiation health risks, particularly to the nervous system, reproductive organs, and immune system.

The EMF Scientist Appeal states, “The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.”

Yet for over two decades, the US has dropped the ball. Federal agencies one might expect to be studying the issue, such as the FDA, CDC, EPA, and NCI, have conducted little meaningful research, health-risk evaluation, or oversight. Current U.S. exposure limits for cell towers and cell phones are unchanged since they were set in 1996. These limits are designed only to protect against short-term heating effects, not the long-term, cumulative exposures our children experience today. In 1996, who could imagine that children, let alone babies, would be using cell phones daily; yet antiquated cell phone limits are still the law of the land. Now our children are exposed to far more than cell phones as there are dozens of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and “smart” devices in our homes and schools, along with a cell tower outside.

While Health and Human Services is moving to investigate the issue, the FCC and Congress are moving in the opposite direction and proposing to fast-track cell towers nationwide by stripping away local city and state control. This will lead to unprecedented increases in RF radiation environmental exposure.

More research is not the answer. The existing scientific evidence and court rulings already require immediate action. Safety guidelines must be updated to reflect today’s continuous, real-world exposures, and enforceable safeguards must be put in place now to protect children.

In the landmark federal lawsuit against the FCC, the D.C. Circuit, a federal court just below the Supreme Court, ordered the FCC to specifically address children’s unique vulnerability to cell phone radiation, finding that the FCC had failed to adequately explain how its cell tower and cell phone radiation limits protect children. Children are more vulnerable. Not only do they absorb more cell phone radiation compared to adults, but their brains are still in development and more sensitive.

A recent study by Yale researchers found that wireless exposure at Bluetooth exposure levels - 4,000 times lower (0.025%) than the U.S. limits- interfered with neurodevelopment and increased the expression of autism-related genes in laboratory models of the fetal brain. Earlier animal experimental studies at Yale found cell phone radiation damaged memory and increased hyperactivity. Their human studies found associations with thyroid cancer. The majority of studies over the last few decades have reported effects.

Since the court order in 2021, I have submitted thousands of scientific research studies to the FCC.

Yet, five years later, the FCC has still not responded to the court order. This is unacceptable.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), an international consortium of physicians and scientists with expertise in the field, sent a letter to Congress just last week, informing our nation’s lawmakers that U.S. wireless radiation limits are outdated, flawed, and scientifically unable to protect the public. They also sent members of U.S. Congress their landmark publication which documented how “adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.”

Further, as detailed in my recently published policy review paper and EHS’s letter to Congress, the FCC has withheld safety data, refused to release iPhone radiation test results, and failed to monitor or enforce real-world exposures. There is no premarket safety testing, no post-market health or compliance surveillance, and research has shown people can be exposed to levels well above U.S. antiquated cell phone limits when the phone is held close to the body.

This situation represents a profound failure of governance. It is time for a change.

To rectify the current situation, government oversight must balance industry power. A strong regulatory framework must be built that rests on transparency and science, free of industry influence. Prevention is the cornerstone of public health, and the U.S. needs to move toward a risk mitigation approach.

The consequences of ignoring the growing science will likely be severe, not only for irreversible health impacts, but also for economic impacts, worker productivity, educational outcomes, and environmental damage. The U.S. should take a leadership role in technology safety by putting children and environmental protection at the center of our decision-making process.

Here are my recommendations to Health and Human Services:

Label cell phones: The RF radiation levels of all cell phones and wireless devices should be publicly posted with clear, easily accessible labels at the point of sale and online. Labels should disclose radiation measurements obtained under real-world use conditions, including body-contact positions. Information on operating frequencies, maximum power output, antenna number and location should also be publicly available. In addition, consumers must be provided with clear, practical guidance on how to reduce RF radiation exposure at the time of purchase and during device setup.

Include special warnings for vulnerable populations: Require clear, prominent black box warnings for children, during pregnancy and for people with medical implants, electronic medical devices, or metal in the body. Warnings should explain the science on health risks, children’s vulnerability, plus the elevated RF exposures from metal on, in, or near the body (from piercings and jewelry to metal implants).

Establish a comprehensive post-market RF radiation surveillance system for cell phones and wireless devices to verify ongoing compliance with RF radiation exposure limits. All radiation measurement data should be posted online in a publicly accessible format for consumers. Devices that exceed RF radiation limits should be taken off the market until corrective action is taken.

Test cell phones and wireless devices in body contact positions: Cell phones and wireless devices should be tested in real-world body-contact positions, not with unrealistic separation distances, as they are now. Radiation compliance tests should reflect how people, especially children, actually use and carry devices. Tests must also account for cumulative exposure from multiple devices and sources operating simultaneously, as real-world RF radiation exposure is additive.

Require pre-market safety testing: Fifth-generation (5G) technology was introduced without such testing, despite its higher frequencies and changes in antenna design. Cell phones that once used one or two antennas now contain five or more, yet phones are still not evaluated for health effects before being sold. All wireless devices, including cell phones, should undergo independent safety testing for long term health effects prior to market approval, and further cell tower expansion should be halted until comprehensive safety testing is completed.

Evaluate FCC’s 1996 cell phone and wireless human exposure limit with a rigorous scientific review of the totality of the evidence on biological and non-thermal effects. The FDA has never done this. A public health approach to developing safety guidelines is needed.

Develop policies for schools to practically implement to reduce wireless exposure in classrooms: This would mean wired Ethernet internet connections networks, cell phones off and away all day, and a ban on cell towers on or near school property.

Require transparent monitoring and disclosure: Mandate routine RF radiation measurements in schools and homes and require public disclosure of exposure levels to parents, educators, and residents. If a cell tower is proposed nearby, all of the community must be notified with a change for meaningful participation.

Educate the public: Update the FDA, CDC and other HHS website pages with the latest scientific research and clear information on how to reduce cell phone, Wi-Fi and other wireless radiation. Post simple steps for devices such as cell phones, Wi-Fi laptops and tablets, wireless earbuds and other wireless connected devices at home. Develop education programs for parents, caretakers, and students.

Download the resources on children and cell phone radiation at Environmental Health Sciences.

If you want to stay connected to our work, please sign up for the EHS newsletter.

After more than a decade of working on cell tower and wireless radiation policy issues, I believe we are at a pivotal moment. The FCC is now advancing unprecedented proposals to fast-track cell tower construction across the United States. In response, opposition is rapidly mounting as communities across the country push back.

If these rules are finalized, you may have no say if a cell tower is placed near your child’s school, outside your bedroom window, or on your neighborhood playground. Your city council may be legally powerless to protect you, no hearings, no setbacks, no appeal.

Even telecom companies themselves warn shareholders that health-related wireless RF radiation claims and lawsuits could materially affect their businesses, while offering no such warnings to families living near cell towers.

“We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us…If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.” - Crown Castle, Form 10-K (2024)

If people don’t comment now, silence will be interpreted as consent—and these regulations could become permanent.

This is one of the few moments when public voices can influence the outcome. This is the moment to be on the record.

The FCC Proposal Would Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers

If adopted, the FCC’s proposed fast-track cell tower rules titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (WT Docket No. 25-276) would transfer significant authority from local city, county, and state governments to the federal government. Local participation in the decision-making process is being reframed by the FCC as a “barrier” to deployment, rather than recognized for what it is: the foundation of democracy.

This is an unprecedented consolidation of federal power over local land-use and zoning decisions. It would sharply reduce community input, weaken zoning and aesthetic protections, limit fee reimbursement, and basically undermine the ability of local governments and residents to decide where and how cell towers and other wireless facilities are deployed. In many cases, applications could be approved automatically under “deemed granted” provisions, even if communities object.

Organizations Warn of Health Risks, Property Impacts, and Loss of Community Protections

A wide range of scientific, public health, environmental, consumer, and local government organizations have formally warned the FCC that these rules would fast-track cell towers into communities while unlawfully stripping away essential local protections. Their filings highlight the wide range of cell tower risks borne by residents, which include impacts to scenic views, property values, increased radiation exposure, and much more.

Cities and Counties Push Back Against Federal Preemption

Major associations representing cities and counties have urged the FCC to withdraw or substantially revise the proposal. In official filings, the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), and the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) state:

“Unrealistic timelines, therefore, threaten to silence the very people who must live with the consequences…If applications are rushed through or ‘’deemed granted’ without adequate review, the responsibility for any resulting harm rests not with the applicant, but with the local authority left to deal with the aftermath.”

In other words, risk, liability and consequences fall on communities, not on the telecom companies pushing accelerated approvals.

Across the country, residents are bringing concerns about wireless infrastructure directly to their local councils, and officials are responding. In Lavallette, New Jersey, the borough council unanimously passed a resolution opposing the FCC and Congressional proposals to limit local permitting authority over 5G deployment after a resident brought the issue to their attention.

Public Record Shows Growing Alarm Over Health and Safety Risks

As of December 26, 2025, more than 2,100 comments had already been filed with the FCC, including thousands from members of the public. Many submissions document that cell towers pose significant health, safety, and property value risks, and emphasize that U.S. RF radiation exposure limits, unchanged since 1996, are outdated, not science-based, and fail to adequately protect public health, children, or the environment.

FCC Has Failed to Comply With a Federal Court Order

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC acted unlawfully by retaining its 1996 wireless radiation exposure limits without explaining how they adequately protect the public and the environment. I was a petitioner in this case, and the court’s message was clear: the FCC cannot rely on outdated assumptions or simply ignore scientific evidence already in its record. The court ordered the FCC to:

1. Explain its decision to retain outdated testing procedures for determining compliance of cell phones and wireless devices.

2. Properly review the submitted evidence on the impacts of wireless radiation on:

   1. Children’s vulnerability

   2. Health effects from long-term exposure

   3. The ubiquity of wireless devices, and

   4. New technological developments since 1996;

3. Properly review submitted evidence on no cancer impacts, such as impacts to the immune, endocrine, nervous, and reproductive systems.

4. Properly review record evidence on the environmental impacts of RF radiation (wildlife, plants, trees, and animals).

However, the FCC has not complied. There has been no response, no explanation, and no updated review, despite the court’s directive.

Over the years, numerous lawmakers have written to the FCC requesting answers. I submitted many of these important letters to the FCC on its 25-276 Docket, including letters from the Governor of Wyoming and over a dozen Ohio state senators and representatives.

A Pattern of Regulatory Failure and Industry Influence

The FCC’s failure to respond to the court order reflects deeper structural problems in how wireless technologies are regulated in the United States. I recently published a policy review in Frontiers in Public Health examining U.S. policy on wireless technologies, which documents how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was defunded and removed from developing health-based safety standards, while authority was consolidated within the FCC, an agency long subject to undue industry influence.

In short, there is no meaningful health oversight, no sustained civilian research program, no pre-market safety testing, no post-market health surveillance, and no comprehensive system for oversight, enforcement, or transparency for cell tower and wireless infrastructure. Instead, U.S. policy essentially operates on the honor system, relying on industry self-certification for safety.

Would you trust the tobacco companies to police themselves?

International Scientists Warn FCC Against Fast-Tracking Cell Towers

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), an international consortium of physicians and scientists, formally cautioned the FCC that cell towers, 5G, and wireless infrastructure should not be fast-tracked, as this will increase public exposure to wireless radiation, an environmental exposure that decades of scientific research has associated with numerous health and environmental impacts:

“The public and environment will carry the costs from this inadequately regulated environmental exposure. The FCC’s proposal effectively treats American communities as test subjects in an uncontrolled national radiation experiment, one conducted without consent, without monitoring, and without updated safety limits. If the Commission proceeds to fast-track cell towers without revising its outdated 1996 RF radiation exposure limits, it will knowingly promote densification of industrial wireless transmitters and expose millions to cell tower RF radiation levels that multiple peer-reviewed studies associate with increased cancer risk, neurological and reproductive harm.”

Senate FCC Oversight Hearing Failed to Address Cell Tower Radiation Health Accountability Issues

There was a critical opportunity for congressional oversight and FCC accountability at the December 17 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation FCC oversight hearing. Ahead of the hearing, scientific and public health experts sent letters urging Senators to question the FCC’s continued reliance on outdated wireless radiation limits and its failure to ensure meaningful oversight, transparency, and enforcement.

The ICBE-EMF letter to the Senate comprehensibly detailed the scientific evidence of harm, concluding:

“the FCC’s exposure limits, unchanged since 1996, are not science-based and do not protect the public. They ignore decades of peer-reviewed research showing biological harm at levels far below those that cause heating.”

Environmental Health Sciences also sent a letter to the U.S. Senators urging them to examine the FCC’s lack of transparency, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement for cell towers and wireless network infrastructure, noting that the agency has no meaningful system to verify compliance with its own limits. Our letter also details the FCC’s refusal to release cell phone radiation test data from its laboratory tests of the Apple iPhone 12.

Despite these letters, cell tower radiation issues were not addressed at the hearing.

This is the time to take action.

Submit Comments to the FCC: You do not need legal or scientific expertise to participate. Even a short, personal comment becomes part of the official federal record and must be considered.

Environmental Health Sciences has created a dedicated webpage, “How to Submit to the FCC,” with clear instructions for submitting comments to the FCC, whether you choose to file a short comment, a longer formal submission, or use our one-step online tool. We also have text for your submissions.

Deadlines: Comments are due December 31, 2025. Reply Comments (to what others state on the record) are due January 15, 2026. After that date, the record closes.

Educate Yourself: Watch our webinar and download our fact sheets on the FCC proposal, as well as on the health and environmental impacts.

Contact Your Local Officials to Send a Letter to the FCC : Tell them about these proposals and request that they send a letter to preserve local control like many other cities and counties have done. Examples of letters to share with local governments are here.

This is a critical moment. Silence will be interpreted as consent. The FCC must hear from as many people as possible, now.

Submit Comments to the FCC