America’s Wireless Safety Net Has Holes: What a New Policy Review Found

A Study Spotlight policy deep dive — PMID 41487623

When you buy a car, it has to pass crash tests. When you take medicine, it went through years of clinical trials. But when a cell tower goes up near your home or a new 5G small cell appears on your street corner, there’s no premarket safety testing required.

That’s one of the central findings in a December 2025 policy review published in Frontiers in Public Health by Theodora Scarato, examining the structural gaps in how the United States regulates wireless radiation exposure.

The paper’s core argument: U.S. wireless safety regulations were designed for a different era — and the regulatory infrastructure needed to protect public health largely doesn’t exist.

The 1996 Problem

Here’s a timeline that should concern you:

1996: The FCC sets radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits, based on standards designed to prevent tissue heating over short exposures
1996: Congress gives FCC regulatory jurisdiction over wireless safety — despite FCC being an engineering/licensing agency with no health expertise
2026: Those same limits remain unchanged. Thirty years. No updates.

During that same period:

Cell phone ownership went from ~44 million to ~330 million Americans
5G networks rolled out nationwide
The average American’s daily wireless exposure increased by orders of magnitude
Children began using wireless devices starting in preschool

The FCC’s current limits are based on what’s called the thermal model — they’re designed to prevent your tissue from heating up from radio waves. They don’t account for non-thermal biological effects that a growing body of research has documented at exposure levels well below the heating threshold.

No Health Agency in the Room

Perhaps the most striking finding in Scarato’s review is the institutional vacuum in U.S. wireless safety oversight:

The EPA was defunded from non-ionizing radiation research in 1996
The FDA has no premarket testing requirement for wireless devices’ biological effects
The OSHA doesn’t enforce RF exposure limits for workers
The FCC — the agency that does regulate — has no health expertise on staff

In practical terms: no U.S. government agency is systematically studying or monitoring the health effects of the wireless environment Americans live in every day.

Compare that to other environmental health issues. Lead paint, asbestos, pesticides, air quality — all have dedicated research programs, monitoring systems, and enforcement mechanisms. Wireless radiation has essentially none of this infrastructure.

Check your EMF exposure

See cell towers, power lines, and substations near any US address.

Search Your Address

The Phone Testing Problem

Scarato’s review highlights a particularly troubling gap in how cell phones are tested for safety compliance:

SAR testing (Specific Absorption Rate) is done with phones held at a fixed distance from a model head
That distance doesn’t reflect how many people actually use their phones — pressed against their head, in their pocket, or in bed while sleeping
Testing uses a model based on a large adult male — not a child, not a pregnant woman
A 2026 simulation study showed that moving a phone just 25mm away from the head cuts SAR by over 50%

The implication: compliance tests may not reflect the exposure levels people actually experience, especially children with thinner skulls and more conductive tissue.

Children: The Biggest Gap

The review devotes significant attention to children’s exposure — and the regulatory silence around it:

Children’s skulls are thinner and more permeable to radio waves
Developing brain tissue is more conductive
Radiation penetrates proportionally deeper into a child’s brain
Children face decades more lifetime exposure than any previous generation
No U.S. regulation specifically addresses children’s wireless exposure

Multiple countries have taken a different approach:

France banned WiFi in nursery schools and restricted phone ads targeting children under 14
Israel limited WiFi in schools and banned phones for young children
Belgium, India, Russia have adopted stricter exposure limits than the U.S.
The European Parliament recommended reducing children’s wireless exposure

The U.S. has done none of this.

The 2021 Court Ruling That Changed Nothing

In August 2021, a landmark federal court ruling in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC sided against the agency. The court found that the FCC had:

Failed to adequately respond to record evidence of harm at sub-thermal levels
Ignored evidence about children’s heightened vulnerability
Not addressed environmental effects on wildlife (especially pollinators)
Not explained its failure to update guidelines since 1996

The court ordered the FCC to provide a “reasoned explanation” for maintaining its outdated limits.

As of early 2026, the FCC has not responded to the court’s mandate. Over four years, and counting.

The Revolving Door

Scarato’s review documents what she characterizes as regulatory capture — the systematic flow of personnel between FCC leadership and the wireless industry:

Multiple FCC commissioners have gone directly to wireless industry positions
Industry lobbying spending on telecommunications consistently ranks among the highest of any sector
The wireless industry has fought efforts to update safety standards

This is worth noting for context: Scarato is the executive director of the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), the organization that brought the successful 2021 court case against the FCC. Her perspective is explicitly advocacy-oriented. That doesn’t invalidate her factual findings — the court ruling, the institutional gaps, and the international policy differences she documents are verifiable — but readers should understand her framing comes from a reform-advocacy position.

What Other Countries Do Differently

The paper catalogs how other nations have moved while the U.S. has stayed still:

Measure	U.S.	Many Other Countries
Exposure limits	1996 FCC limits (unchanged)	Stricter limits adopted
Premarket safety testing	None for wireless devices	Some require testing
Children’s protections	None	School WiFi limits, phone restrictions
Monitoring/surveillance	No active program	Active EMF monitoring in some countries
Independent research	Defunded since 1996	Ongoing research programs

The gap isn’t subtle.

What This Means for You

If you’re using EMF Radar’s map tool to check your area, here’s why this policy context matters:

The limits aren’t the full story. Being “within FCC limits” means you’re below the threshold for tissue heating. It doesn’t mean the exposure has been studied for long-term biological effects at that level.
No one is monitoring ambient exposure. Even if you wanted to know how your neighborhood’s total wireless environment has changed over the last decade, that data doesn’t exist at the federal level.
Distance still matters. Whether or not you believe current limits are adequate, physics doesn’t change — exposure drops dramatically with distance from any source.
You can take practical steps. Use speakerphone or earbuds to reduce phone SAR to your head. Keep devices away from your body. Check what’s near your home.
The regulatory landscape may change. The court ruling, growing international precedent, and accumulating research create pressure for eventual reform. When it comes, the changes could affect property values, school policies, and wireless infrastructure planning. For context on how the US compares, see our EMF exposure limits by country comparison — some nations already set limits 100x stricter.

The Bottom Line

Scarato’s review isn’t really presenting new science — it’s documenting a governance failure. Whether you’re alarmed by EMF research or find it reassuring, there’s a structural problem when:

The agency responsible for safety limits has no health expertise
No premarket safety testing exists for wireless devices’ biological effects
Exposure standards haven’t been updated in 30 years despite massive changes in how we use wireless technology
A federal court order to review the evidence has gone unanswered for 4+ years

This doesn’t mean your cell phone is necessarily dangerous. It means the system designed to make that determination — one way or the other — isn’t functioning.

The Study: Scarato T. “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” Frontiers in Public Health. 2025 Dec. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583. PMID: 41487623.

Want to check the wireless environment around your address? Use EMF Radar’s free map tool to see cell towers near any U.S. location. Set up tower alerts to get notified when new tower applications are filed near you.

Read more Study Spotlights: Safety limits may be too lax | EMF and wildlife | WHO review controversy | 5G phone SAR simulation

America's Wireless Safety Net Has Holes: What a New Policy…