The Misclassification of Wireless Radiation Risks: Why It’s Time to Defend the Facts

In the face of growing scientific evidence, the general public remains largely unaware of the dangers posed by wireless radiation beyond its well-known heating effects. Many still believe the outdated idea that radiation is harmless as long as it doesn’t heat tissues significantly. This belief is dangerous, and it highlights exactly why John Coates and RF Safe are fighting so hard to change the conversation. The truth is that wireless radiation can cause or worsen a wide range of medical issues—even at exposure levels that do not generate significant heat.

It’s not just about science anymore; it’s a policy issue. The failure to acknowledge non-thermal biological effects at the regulatory level has caused critical delays in implementing proper health protections for the American public. Unless this misclassification of health risks is corrected at the regulatory compliance level, people will remain uninformed about the true risks, and funding for critical research and mitigation will continue to lag behind.

The facts are clear: it’s no longer a scientific debate whether wireless radiation has biological effects below thermal levels. The evidence is overwhelming and supported by countless studies. This is now an issue of government accountability and policy. Regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have been captured by corporate interests for decades, their duty to protect the public sidetracked by politically motivated appointments and industry influence. As long as these agencies refuse to act, the health of the American people—especially our children—will continue to be at risk.

We must remember that votes matter, and they have the power to influence whether public health is prioritized over profit. We need elected officials who will restore funding to critical research programs like the National Toxicology Program (NTP), whose cancer research into wireless radiation was defunded under the Biden-Harris administration. We need officials who will hold regulatory bodies accountable and ensure that safety guidelines reflect modern science—not outdated standards from 25 years ago.

The importance of updating safety guidelines cannot be understated. In 2021, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. won a historic court case, forcing the FCC to provide a justification for why its outdated safety guidelines hadn’t been updated in over two decades. The result? The FCC couldn’t offer a valid reason. The guidelines remain outdated, focusing only on thermal effects and ignoring non-thermal biological impacts—which have been proven time and time again to pose serious risks.

I urge people to read the judge’s comments from this case. The findings were clear and pointed to a lack of justification for failing to act on modern scientific evidence. Yet, despite the courts demanding action, nothing meaningful has been done. It is challenging to help people understand the truth when they have faith that the government is protecting them, but unfortunately, this faith is misplaced when it comes to wireless radiation. People continue to appear on television, stating there is no proof of harm, but the truth is the opposite—the proof is overwhelming.

What we lack is not evidence of risk but proof that the current safety guidelines are adequate. There is no evidence that guidelines based on thermal effects alone are sufficient to protect anyone—not men, not women, and certainly not children. Current Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) testing is based on models of a full-grown male, ignoring the fact that children and women are biologically different and may be more vulnerable. There is no proof that these standards protect against the non-thermal biological effects documented by numerous studies. Instead, year after year, more research emerges showing the negative effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

We must move past this notion that there is still a scientific debate about non-thermal effects. The debate is over. This is now a political issue. It’s time to elect officials who will demand that regulatory agencies protect public health, enforce court orders, and ensure the safety of future generations. The health of the American people should come before corporate profits, and our vote is the most powerful tool we have to make that happen.

Brain Cancer on the Ballot: Why This Election Matters

Brain cancer is not just a metaphorical issue in the upcoming election—it is a literal one. The decisions made by the next administration will directly influence how the country handles wireless radiation safety. Different candidates have starkly different positions on RF radiation research and safety guidelines, and your vote could impact the risk of brain cancer for yourself, your children, and future generations.

Kamala Harris: Corporate Capture and Health Neglect Kamala Harris has aligned herself with the same policies that have allowed the telecommunications industry to continue operating under outdated safety standards. Under the Biden-Harris administration, funding for the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which found clear evidence linking RF radiation to cancer, was diverted to military projects, effectively shutting down critical cancer research.

One of the biggest failures under Harris has been the refusal to update safety guidelines for RF radiation, despite overwhelming evidence of non-thermal biological effects. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) still relies on safety standards from 1996—before smartphones and Wi-Fi were part of everyday life. These guidelines focus exclusively on thermal effects, dismissing the more insidious risks of non-thermal exposure, such as DNA damage, oxidative stress, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability—all of which have been linked to cancers like gliomas, the very cancer that claimed President Joe Biden’s son, Beau Biden.

Despite personal tragedy striking so close to home, Harris’s administration has turned a blind eye to the growing scientific consensus that RF radiation can contribute to brain cancer. The NTP’s findings, along with those from the Ramazzini Institute, which showed similar cancer risks at much lower exposure levels, have been ignored. This is a critical failure in public health policy, driven largely by corporate influence over regulatory bodies like the FCC.

Public Health Neglect Under the Biden-Harris Administration Despite the 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the FCC had failed to properly justify maintaining outdated RF radiation exposure guidelines, the Biden-Harris administration has allowed these antiquated standards to persist. Rather than enforcing the court’s mandate to reassess these guidelines in light of new scientific evidence, the administration has remained passive, effectively allowing the FCC to continue neglecting public health.

Under Vice President Kamala Harris, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)—which conducted one of the most comprehensive studies linking RF radiation to cancer—was allowed to run out of funding. This halted further research that could have provided even more concrete evidence that the current FCC guidelines fail to protect the public, especially vulnerable populations like children.

In short, Harris has not made any effort to safeguard public health from a threat that has been clearly recognized by the courts. Her inaction has left millions, including children, exposed to potential risks from RF radiation, even as scientific and legal findings demand urgent reform.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: A Champion for Public Health In stark contrast to Harris, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a tireless advocate for RF radiation safety. His 2021 lawsuit against the FCC resulted in a historic court ruling that the agency had “failed to justify” its outdated safety standards. Kennedy has long pushed for a complete overhaul of these guidelines, emphasizing the need for regulatory bodies to recognize the dangers posed by non-thermal RF radiation exposure.

Kennedy’s stance is firmly rooted in science. He has pointed to major studies, including the NTP’s decade-long investigation, which found increased rates of brain and heart tumors in animals exposed to cell phone radiation. Kennedy has also criticized the FCC’s cozy relationship with the telecommunications industry, calling for independent research and stricter oversight to protect the public from the dangers of wireless radiation.

A vote for Kennedy in 2024 is a vote for updated safety guidelines and a government that prioritizes public health over corporate profits.

Donald Trump: A Shift in Perspective While Donald Trump’s first term was marked by appointments that favored corporate interests—such as Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, as chairman of the FCC—he has since acknowledged his past mistakes. Through discussions with Kennedy, Trump has pledged to make RF radiation safety a key issue in his 2024 campaign.

Trump has committed to restoring funding for the NTP’s research on cancer risks associated with RF radiation and has promised to overhaul the FCC, breaking the telecommunications industry’s stranglehold on regulatory policy. By admitting past failures and shifting focus toward public health, Trump represents a significant change in the way RF radiation safety could be handled under his leadership.

Voting for Trump in 2024 means supporting a candidate who now recognizes the risks of RF radiation and is committed to updating safety standards to reflect current scientific evidence.

Conclusion: Why Brain Cancer Is Truly on the Ballot in 2024 It may seem sensationalist to say that brain cancer is on the ballot in 2024, but the evidence is undeniable. The NTP’s findings, the Ramazzini Institute’s confirmation, and epidemiological studies like the Interphone Study and Dr. Lennart Hardell’s work consistently show a link between RF radiation exposure and increased cancer risks. We are no longer debating whether RF radiation poses a risk to human health—we are now debating how much longer we will allow it to harm the public without intervention.

Kamala Harris’s administration has not only failed to address these risks but has actively halted research that could save lives. On the other hand, both RFK Jr. and Donald Trump have pledged to reinstate this critical research, update safety standards, and end the regulatory capture that has allowed corporate interests to dominate public health policy.

This election is about more than political alignment—it’s about public health. As wireless radiation continues to proliferate, the decisions made by our next leaders will have lasting consequences on our health and the health of future generations. Voting in 2024 is not just about economic or social policy—it’s about whether we will stand by as outdated safety guidelines contribute to rising cancer rates or if we will take action to protect ourselves and our children. Brain cancer is truly on the ballot this year, and your vote could be the difference between a government that protects its people and one that sacrifices public health for corporate profits.