On Tuesday, Senator Carol Bosn presented LB4, Adopt the Telecommunications Exchange Deregulation Act, to the Nebraska Legislature’s Transportation and Telecommunications Committee, explaining that the bill only applies to land-line communications, old copper phone lines.
My comments to the committee regarding the impact of deregulated wireless communications, below, were prepared based on the text of the bill as introduced. The edit, Sec. 4. specifying the Deregulation Act, defines the voice communication service as “any electronic, radio, satellite, cable, optical, microwave, wireline, wireless, or other medium or method, regardless of the protocol used;”
The Act would no longer require a deregulated carrier to comply with quality-of-service standards which are essential in assuring that telecom equipment risks of harms are minimized. And, relying solely on a carrier’s antenna certification for safe electromagnetic radio frequency (RF) emission levels does not meet the threshold of reasonable care due to the health impacts of RF and the FCC lacking current regulations. I asked the committee to adopt oversight provisions for monitoring and reporting RF emissions similar to states like Washington, Texas and California.
Testimony in opposition
I am here today to express my concern for the proposed elimination of quality-of-service standards for deregulated telecom carriers. I view the quality-of-service standard as essential in assuring that telecom equipment risks of harm are minimized and I contend that the potential harms from relying solely on a carrier’s antenna certification for safe electromagnetic radio frequency (RF) emission levels does not meet the threshold of reasonable care.
States like California, Washington, New York, and Texas have already implemented RF emission standards and regulatory oversight to protect public health. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the potential health risks associated with RF exposure. The graphic provided compares some of the benefits and harms electricity and RF documented by doctors since the eighteenth century and the overlap with symptoms listed in a 2023 Scientific American article on Covid, including symptoms such as respiratory infection, chest pain, and shortness of breath, just to name a few.
Like the static on a radio, the impact of RF emissions on people can range from barely perceptible to totally disruptive. And, since the FCC has not revised its exposure limits since 1996, it does not provide an adequate level of protection. The FCC’s RF exposure limit of 1000 µW/cm² (61 V/m) is based on thermal effects (tissue heating) and doesn’t consider non-thermal biological impacts, nor does it consider independent recommendations, such as EUROPAEM’s lower exposure limit of0.01 µW/cm² (0.45 V/m).(1) This lower threshold is critical because it addresses health risks from the non-thermal effects of lower level RF signals which disrupt fundamental electrical flow of fourth-phase water, a gel state, that plays an essential role in cellular processes. (2)(3) Electrical flow is not currently considered in the specific absorption rate (SAR) calculation used by industry to assess negative health effects, and is currently set at approximately 108 V/m for localized exposure.
The fast-track expansion of wireless networks makes it increasingly challenging for acutely impacted Nebraskans to find low static space and quietly impacts all Nebraskans long-term. You’ll find that emissions monitoring for nine locations in my neighborhood over the last three years shows three locations in a safe range under 0.6 V/m, two over 1 V/m, and 6 locations ranging from 2.4 to 6 V/m, the limit of my meter.
The current lack of updated FCC regulations, coupled with the rapid pace of technological expansion, makes it critical to act now. Adding provisions to LB4 that would establish independent oversight of RF emissions as part of the quality-of-service standards for telecom providers should include third-party monitoring, transparent reporting, and community oversight and enforcement mechanisms, ensuring that telecom providers at a minimum meet regulatory emission standards.
We must not wait for further scientific studies to emerge when we already have sufficient evidence of the risks. Compliance monitoring to protect Nebraskans from harmful RF exposure is a responsibility we must take seriously.
References
(1) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 Belyaev I, EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. PMID: 27454111.
The European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM), provides recommendations for limiting electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure to protect public health, with guidelines followed by health professionals in over 30 countries based on emerging scientific evidence regarding non-thermal biological effects of EMF radiation.
(2) Héroux, Paul. “The Collision between Wireless and Biology.” Heliyon, 2025, pp. e42267-, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42267.
(3) Pollack, Gerald H. “Is It Oxygen, or Electrons, That Our Respiratory System Delivers?” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 192, 2024, pp. 111467-, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2024.111467.