Due to the failure of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the United States Government to establish adequate, science based Human Exposure Guidelines for Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation (Find Out More), we will start defining them here. We are including level information on health consequences with increasing power levels so you can try to pick how much impairment you are willing to endure.
There were two well known references provided by the Public to the FCC for their remanded Order 19-126, the BioInitiative Report and Building Biology, which specify relatively low limits (0.0003-0.0006 μW/m2 and 0.1 μW/m2 , respectively).
For a summary of the impairments and health effects reported with increasing power levels we present this:
The BioIniative (2012) and Building Biology (2008) limits would list before and after the FIVE BARS ON CELL PHONE on the above consequences table. So we have know for a long time, what can be done with this technology without significant harm. Who pushed us so far beyond?
Origin of Existing FCC Limit
The early characterization of the exposure has been an obstacle to establishing what safe limits are. In 1996, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) relied on a ten-year old review, based on science through 1982 that made a case to use Specific Absorption (SA) as a primary criteria in the first 16 chapters and then chose Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the 17th. NCRP Report 86. Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Fields: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1986-NCRP-86-OCR.pdf . All power flux density readings (in µW/m²) are mathematically derived from Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).
Certainly there is a time consideration here that obfuscates even the old heating standards which were morphed into the FCC limit of today. The eleven monkeys and twelve rats of the experimentation considered in NCRP Report 86 had the dosage on them increased to the point they became unresponsive and could no longer seek or eat their food. Then their anal temperature was measured https://mystreetmychoice.com/thisworks/#/31 . It is of note that these old animal studies are used to validate today’s limits as our government has rejected their own animal studies of 2024 that show harm including DNA damage, brain damage and cancer https://reject5g.info/2024/04/14/balderdash-balderdash-and-more-baldersash/
Where Are We Now?
We ask you to consider all this and set the human exposure guidelines you want for yourself, your family and your community. There is an ongoing call for a better standard that is being steadfastly ignored. The FCC will need to address this within the next year to avoid further court action over their remanded Order 19-126 and we will get to see what further tricks they will play. The continued deployment of wireless telecommunication facilities makes one wonder if the test for us will be the same as the eleven monkeys and twelve rats.
While we are now exposed to a vast spectrum of frequencies, you can still get a good idea of most of what you are exposed to by measuring by using one of these meters: https://reject5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Meters-for-Most-of-Your-RF.pdf
Note that the EMF/EMR exposure from the Human Body Communication (HBC) band is not included in the above analysis. That band is an Electrostatic Field Communication (EFC) band that is galvanic/electrical in nature and is not photonic. It is involved in the use of wearables and is an intra-body band for biosensors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224215458_An_overview_of_IEEE_802156_standard . This will also be integral to the Digital ID.
Are you shocked?
One reply on “Human Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Microwave Radiation”
Well done Luanne. Because of major house repair/renovation AND major computer reconfiguration projects, I have been going through every single file (hard and electronic) that I’ve collected on EMFs over the last 20 years or so. As I review these, the industrial and segments of governmental “spin” discounting the effects that have been documented through long-term time, just become so apparent. FYI – I’ve come across writings by Andrew Marino (LSU Med School retired) who worked with Dr Robert Becker, an orthopedic doc who was looking for “best practices” to help his patients (lots of fractured bones and even amputees) heal well. He studied salamanders (with Marino) with their highly regenerative capacities, to look for clues. In that pursuit he and Marino uncovered the negative impacts, the cellular impacts. Marino recounts the history of how the myth of “Cannot be anything else other than biochemical effects (therefore only caused by heating properties of EMFs) that cause harm” via scientist Handler who controlled ALL the grants and what got published, etc. Fascinating (tragic) story of human hubris pushing the narrative. Canadian Paul Heroux is one scientist who has continued to point out the facts and raise the questions that SHOULD have us wake up. So Marino (website AndrewMarino I think) keeps on speaking up and giving us the bloody truth context of how the narrative has been (and continues to be) warped to benefit unfettered technological development (even though the backlash to Handler’s “only pure basic research will get us where we want to go got us into this ALL=tech is good myth). In just one more week, I MAY have my house and my office starting to recover from these months of chaos.
Your article hits many of the wrong turns and thwarted expectations that are so worthy of our attention/ so important for our survival. Thank You!