The 1889 Science That Still Dictates RF Safety Standards

How Outdated Physics Shapes Today’s Wireless Policies

Introduction: The Year That Defined RF Safety… in the 19th Century

It’s 1889—the same year the Eiffel Tower was unveiled to the world at the Exposition Universelle (World’s Fair) in Paris. It was also a time when Heinrich Hertz’s experiments proving the existence of electromagnetic waves were making waves in the scientific community. While radio communication had not yet been developed or demonstrated at the fair, Hertz’s work laid the foundation for what would later become wireless technology.

Yet, in a bizarre twist of history, the fundamental physics used to assess RF safety today—specifically, the FCC’s guidelines—trace their origins to this same year. The key assumptions behind modern wireless safety limits are built on the Arrhenius equation from 1889, a thermodynamic model that assumes the only danger from electromagnetic fields (EMF) is heating.

This raises a crucial question: why are we still using 19th-century science to regulate 21st-century wireless technology?

The 1889 World’s Fair and Hertz’s Groundbreaking Discoveries

At the 1889 World’s Fair in Paris, the world marveled at industrial and scientific advancements, including the unveiling of the Eiffel Tower. Around the same time, physicist Heinrich Hertz was conducting experiments that confirmed the existence of radio waves, proving that electromagnetic waves could be transmitted and detected—an essential breakthrough for future wireless communication.

However, radio communication was not yet demonstrated at the fair, as Marconi’s pioneering work on wireless telegraphy would not take place until the 1890s. Still, the scientific foundations of wireless technology were being laid—and so were the flawed assumptions that would shape RF safety for over a century.

The Arrhenius Equation: The 1889 Science That Shapes RF Guidelines

The Arrhenius equation, published in 1889, describes how the rate of a chemical reaction depends on temperature. It was a groundbreaking discovery for classical chemistry, but it has absolutely no relevance to modern bioelectromagnetic science.

Yet, the entire FCC safety framework for RF exposure is based on this outdated equation. The logic is simple but flawed:

• If RF radiation doesn’t generate enough heat to break chemical bonds or cook tissue, it must be safe.
• This ignores non-thermal biological effects—which we now know play a significant role in RF-induced damage.
• The assumption that “heat is the only hazard” fails to account for oxidative stress, voltage-gated calcium channel activation, and DNA damage.

This model was fine in 1889, when the concept of DNA, cell signaling, or even the inner workings of neurons were barely understood. But in 2024, we know better.

Why 1889 Science Is Failing Us Today

1. It Ignores Non-Thermal Biological Effects

• In the late 20th century, studies began revealing that low-intensity RF radiation can cause cellular stress, even if there’s no measurable heating.
• Oxidative stress, DNA strand breaks, and calcium channel disruptions occur at levels far below what’s needed to cause tissue heating.
• The National Toxicology Program (NTP) study (2018) found clear evidence of cancer from RF radiation, even at exposure levels within the FCC’s “safe” limits.

2. The Guidelines Were Illegitimate from the Beginning

• The FCC guidelines were established in 1996, before the human genome was fully mapped and despite substantial research showing non-thermal biological effects.
• The wireless industry’s own $25 million study showed non-thermal effects, as did research from Guy for the U.S. Air Force, Robert Becker, and many others.
• The magnitude of the preponderance of studies leaves no doubt that RF exposure causes non-thermal hazards.

3. The Dose-Response Model Is Nonlinear

• The NTP study’s findings shattered the thermal model by proving that lower doses sometimes caused more harm than higher doses (1.5 W/kg had higher cancer rates than 6 W/kg).
• The Jamaludin study (2025) on the Four-Hour Worst Effect showed that shorter RF exposures could be more damaging than continuous exposure—completely contradicting the linear thermal model.

4. The 1996 Guidelines Were Cemented by an Unconstitutional Law

• The same year the FCC’s flawed guidelines were adopted, Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed, making it illegal for local governments to challenge RF safety limits.
• This law effectively blocked communities from protecting their own health, ensuring that the outdated thermal model was the only standard allowed.
• Between 19th-century science and pre-18th-century legal restrictions, we are facing a regulatory travesty.

How Industry Uses This 1889 Science to Dodge Accountability

Telecom and power industries rely on the same 1889-era assumptions to claim that RF radiation is safe. Here’s how they get away with it:

1. Hiding Behind the “It’s Non-Ionizing” Argument

• Industry claims that since RF waves aren’t as powerful as X-rays or UV radiation, they can’t damage DNA.
• But we now know that biological effects aren’t just about breaking chemical bonds.
• Low-level radiation can disrupt ion channels, induce oxidative stress, and alter cellular function.

2. The “If It Doesn’t Heat, It’s Safe” Fallacy

• Regulators assume the only thing that matters is thermal energy.
• This ignores the thousands of studies showing biological impacts well below thermal thresholds.

3. Locking in 1996 FCC Guidelines Based on 1889 Science

• The FCC’s RF exposure limits were set in 1996, based on the Arrhenius equation and outdated heating models.
• These limits have never been updated, despite over 30 years of research proving non-thermal effects.

Final Thoughts: The Time to Act Is Now

The FCC’s outdated RF exposure limits do not reflect reality. The latest science confirms that RF radiation has nonlinear biological effects, oxidative stress impacts, and cancer risks that defy the thermal-only model.

But as long as industry-backed regulations and legal barriers remain in place, public health will continue to suffer.

This is not a conspiracy. This is scientific suppression, regulatory capture, and a direct threat to public health.

We need to demand change. Share this article. Contact your representatives. Demand a full overhaul of RF safety standards.

The FCC won’t act unless we force them to. Let’s make them listen.