The current exposure standards for radio-frequency radiation, (RFR), in the US are established by the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), a commission established to allocate radio frequencies, and manage communications issues, not health issues. The FCC itself has acknowledged, time and again, that it is NOT a public health agency.

The current exposure standards in the US are ADVISORY, not COMPULSORY. They They are summarized in the IEEE C95.1-1991 standard, (which was based on ANSI C95.1-1982), and applies to frequencies of 3kHz to 300GHz (3,000 to 300,000,000,000 cycles per second.)[1]

In spite of the fact a good deal of research shows biological effects exist at exposures far below thermal levels, this is still considered a "thermal effects only" exposure standard.

Can People be trusted to come up with safety guidelines to regulate their own Industries? In this case, the ADVISORY exposure standard for Radio-Frequency Radiation adopted by the US Govt is based on the IEEE C95.1-1991 standard, which was adopted by the IEEE. IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

1. How can ENGINEERS be competent to develop a BIOLOGICAL exposure standard, particularly when specialists in the field lack consensus?
2. Because their livlihood depends on electrical apparatus, isn't this a clear conflict of interest?
3. Is this why we have an exposure standard 500 times higher than European countries?
4. In many other countries, there are different exposure standards for the general public and for occupational exposure.

The Players

• ANSI,
• DoD, Department of Defense,
• DOE, Department of Energy,
• EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,
• FCC, Federal Communications Commission,
• IEEE, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Read IEEE USAB Position Statement on EMF Research.
• NAS/NRC, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, report, or press release, reporting no danger.
• NCRP, National Council on Radiation Protection,
• NEMFAC, National Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory Committee (to EMF-RAPID). "We take this action because, after perusal of the pre-publication NAS/NRC report released October 31, 1996, we conclude that neither the press release nor the Executive Summary of the report adequately reflects the conclusions to be found in the body of the report. ... Contrary to reports in the popular press. the NAS/NRC report does not state that extremely low magnetic fields are safe. Rather, the report concludes that there is an unexplained, but statistically reliable and robust association between power transmission and distribution systems and childhood cancer and that continued research is necessary."