International RF Limits

Radio Frequency (Pulsed Microwave Radiation) limits by country are mainly established by regulatory agencies influenced by the wireless industry. These limits are based solely on thermal effects in adults and do not account for long-term, non-thermal biological effects across all ages or body sizes.

The Telecommunication industry measure continuous RF exposure using RMS (Root Mean Square) power levels, not Peak Power, as used by Building Biology Professionals. Peak power can be up to 100 times higher than their RMS value on some devices. Cell towers peak power levels vary significantly depending on the transmission type and modulation scheme, often much higher than their RMS levels.

Captured Regulatory Agencies

Many first-time EMF meter users are often alarmed by the high levels of microwave radiation they encounter while out and about. This can be attributed to the explosion of wireless connectivity, smart cities, the widespread rollout of cell towers, and the influence of compromised government agencies.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (US Secretary of Health & Human Services) along with many others in positions of authority, state that agencies such as the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), and other national regulatory bodies have been compromised by the wireless industry.

Key Issues with Captured Wireless Regulatory Agencies:

1/ Industry Influence on Policymaking:

• Many regulatory agencies rely on research & funding from the telecom industry itself.

• Revolving door between telecom executives and regulatory positions (e.g., former FCC chairmen moving to top telecom companies).
  

2/ Outdated Safety Standards:

• ICNIRP and FCC guidelines are based on thermal effects only, ignoring biological effects such as DNA damage, oxidative stress, and neurological issues.

• Standards were set decades ago before modern pulsed wireless technology (5G, smart meters, and IoT devices) became widespread.

3/ Conflict of Interest in Research Funding:

• Many studies downplaying RF risks are funded by telecom companies.

• Independent studies showing harm (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini studies on cancer risks) are often dismissed or not considered in policy decisions.

4/ Lack of Precautionary Approach:

• Unlike environmental or food safety regulations, RF radiation policies do not adopt the Precautionary Principle.

• Countries like Russia, China, and parts of Europe have far stricter RF exposure limits, and measurement methods but Western regulatory bodies resist revising guidelines.

5/ Suppression of Dissenting Scientists:

• Experts who raise concerns (e.g., Dr. Devra Davis, Dr. Martin Pall, Dr. Henry Lai, Dr. Andrew Marino.) often face professional attacks or funding cuts.

---

The WHO’s IARC classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B) in 2011, yet industry- friendly agencies continue to downplay risks.