Waves Clinic
The Five Fallacies of the Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure Limits!

The Five Fallacies of the Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure Limits

Developed by ANSI, IEEE and by ICNIRP in association with industry and military organizations, the existing exposure limits are based on these five false assumptions:

Fallacy 1:

  • The only adverse biological effect from exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is heating.

Fact: Heating is not the issue. Hundreds if not thousands of studies show adverse health effects from headaches and sperm damage to many types of cancer including brain cancer. In all of studies with no temperature change. These were the kinds of studies that led the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare radiofrequency radiation a Group 2B (possible) Human Carcinogen.

Fallacy 2:

  • Only immediate (acute) adverse biological effects are important to consider; long-term (chronic) effects are not a concern.

Fact: The FCC’s exposure limits did not consider the health effects to people if they are exposed to hours and hours of this radiation over several years. Cancers can have long latency periods, and several significant research studies show links between long-term exposure and brain tumors. Such research led to the IARC Group 2B (possible) Human Carcinogen classification, and this information on long term effects was not considered when FCC’s exposure limits were developed decades ago.

Fallacy 3:

  • Measuring radiation power levels by averaging over time allows us to understand the impact on our health. Peak radiation exposures are not necessary to measure to understand the potential impact from an exposure.

Fact: Peak millisecond radiation bursts impact our bodies at the cellular level. FCC’s exposure limits average the radiation exposures for 30 minutes, rather than consider the intense pulses that people are exposed to. Many scientists are concerned that it is the erratic nature of the wireless signal that can cause harmful biological effects. If you report averages, then those are numbers determined by calculation instead of reporting the actual peak levels. How much lower are the averages than the peaks? Averages can report numbers that appear to be far lower than peak levels.

Background: In the U.S., the FCC regulations (mostly for IEEE C95.1-1991) averaged exposure to the public over a 30-minute time period, and for workers a 6-minute time period. ICNIRP defines the averaged exposure to the public and to workers over a 6-minute time period.

To illustrate: I punch you, and that breaks your nose. I say the power of my punch can be averaged over the last year (that’s 365 days) and therefore you should not be hurt as I really did not punch you hard over the entire year—considering only the average power. Does this make sense? Should we use average or peak when we talk about measuring the impact on our bodies?

Fallacy 4:

  • Assessments of the unique vulnerability of children and the fetus is not necessary—only the radiation absorption into a large man is important.

Fact: FCC compliance testing utilizes a model of a 220-pound male head. Research repeatedly indicates that the radiation penetrates deeper into children’s smaller bodies and brains. The current FCC exposure limits did not consider the higher energy absorption in fetuses, children, and women.

Fallacy 5:

  • All body tissue uniformly absorbs radiofrequency radiation. The ability of radiofrequency radiation to be absorbed differently into different body tissues and to have different biological effects due to the unique makeup of different body tissues and organs is not important to consider in understanding risks to public health.

Fact: The FCC’s exposure limits do not consider how this radiation is differentially absorbed by various body tissues. For example, female breast tissue is highly absorbent tissue, therefore the radiation will result in a much higher dose. Eyes and testes are also particularly vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. Children’s bodies have been shown to have a higher water content making their tissues more absorptive of the radiation. However scientific documentation of the different electrical properties of different tissues in humans of various ages does not exist in the decades-old FCC exposure limit guidelines.