The Unheeded Call: Non-Ionizing Radiation Regulation, Gravity Waves, and the Persistent Thermal vs. Non-Thermal Debate

Soviet roots

In 1979, Karen A. Massey, a project attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, published a seminal article in the Duke Law Journal titled The Challenge of Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Proposal for Legislation (Massey, 1979). This meticulously crafted document exposed the fragmented regulatory landscape governing non-ionizing radiation in the United States, involving a dizzying array of federal agencies—Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and even the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)—each holding a piece of the electromagnetic puzzle. Massey’s central thesis was a clarion call for unified legislation to address the potential health and environmental risks of non-ionizing radiation, particularly radiofrequency (RF) and microwave radiation, which were becoming ubiquitous with technologies like CB radios and microwave ovens. She argued that the scientific and policy communities must bridge their divide to tackle this complex pollutant, a challenge compounded by the contentious debate over thermal versus non-thermal biological effects. Massey’s provocative analogy—comparing the dismissal of non-thermal effects to denying that apples fell before Newton’s law of gravity—invites a deeper exploration of whether atmospheric phenomena, such as gravity waves in the lower mesosphere, could intersect with non-ionizing radiation effects, as hinted by Soviet research she referenced. This essay traces the historical evolution of non-ionizing radiation regulation, examines the enduring thermal vs. non-thermal debate, and speculates on the interconnectedness of atmospheric gravity waves, drawing on Massey’s insights and contemporary science to underscore why her call for action remains urgent in 2025.

Historical Context: A Fragmented Regulatory Landscape

In the late 1970s, non-ionizing radiation was an emerging concern, driven by the proliferation of RF-emitting devices. Massey identified a sprawling network of U.S. agencies—HEW, FCC, EPA, OSHA, Department of Defense (DOD), and others—each with overlapping jurisdictions but no cohesive strategy (Massey, 1979). The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (PL 90-602) was a foundational effort, empowering federal agencies to set standards and fund research on electronic product radiation, including non-ionizing sources (Public Law 90-602, 1968). Yet, by 1979, Massey noted that funding for non-ionizing radiation research had dwindled, with oversight shifting to the engineering-focused FCC, sidelining health agencies like the EPA. This fragmentation, she argued, left the public vulnerable to potential risks, as no single entity coordinated scientific inquiry or policy.

Massey’s critique was prescient. The passage of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 exacerbated this fragmentation by prohibiting state and local governments from regulating wireless facilities based on RF emissions’ environmental or health effects, provided they met FCC standards (Telecommunications Act, 1996). This legislation, intended to streamline telecommunications infrastructure, prioritized industry interests over precautionary public health measures, a setback Massey could not have foreseen but aligns with her warnings about regulatory incoherence. By 2025, the FCC’s 1996 guidelines, reaffirmed in 2019 and expanded for 5G frequencies in 2020, remain anchored in thermal-effect assumptions, ignoring mounting evidence of non-thermal risks (FCC, 2019). The Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (2021) ruling, which mandated the FCC to justify its dismissal of non-thermal studies, highlights ongoing tensions, yet no significant regulatory overhaul has emerged (Environmental Health Trust, 2021).

The Thermal vs. Non-Thermal Debate: A Persistent Red Herring

At the heart of Massey’s argument lies the thermal vs. non-thermal effects debate, which she labeled a scientific misstep. In 1979, U.S. standards, influenced by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), assumed biological effects from RF radiation occurred only through tissue heating, measured by specific absorption rate (SAR). Massey challenged this, citing Soviet research (e.g., Zalyubovskaya, 1977) that observed neurological and reproductive effects at below-thermal levels, leading to exposure standards 100–1000 times stricter than U.S. limits (Massey, 1979). She argued that dismissing non-thermal effects because their mechanisms were unexplained was “slightly contrary to good science,” likening it to denying observable phenomena before a theoretical framework, such as Newton’s gravity, was established (Massey, 1979, p. 146).

This debate remains a significant impediment in 2025. Studies like the National Toxicology Program (NTP) (2018) and Ramazzini Institute (2018) have reported evidence of cancer and DNA damage from non-thermal RF exposure, yet the FCC and ICNIRP maintain thermal-based guidelines, citing inconclusive mechanisms (NTP, 2018; Falcioni et al., 2018). Critics argue this reflects industry influence and a lack of funding for non-thermal research, a concern Massey raised when noting the decline in PL 90-602’s research mandate. The Soviet approach, which prioritized empirical evidence over mechanistic certainty, contrasts with the U.S.’s conservative stance, echoing Massey’s call for a paradigm shift.

The Gravity Analogy and Atmospheric Connections

Massey’s gravity analogy, while rhetorical, invites speculation about whether gravitational or atmospheric phenomena could intersect with non-ionizing radiation effects. Her reference to Soviet research, which embraced non-thermal effects as self-evident as “apples falling from trees,” suggests a broader scientific openness that may have included environmental factors. Atmospheric gravity waves—oscillations driven by buoyancy forces in the lower mesosphere (50–90 km)—offer a potential point of intersection, given their role in modulating ionospheric electron density, which affects RF propagation.

Gravity waves, studied extensively by 1979 through works like Hines (1960), propagate from tropospheric sources (e.g., thunderstorms, orographic effects) to the mesosphere, where they break, driving circulation and inducing traveling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs) via the E-region dynamo (Hines, 1960; Richmond, 1978). These TIDs alter ionospheric plasma, impacting RF signals used in radar, GPS, and telecommunications (Vadas & Fritts, 2006). Soviet researchers, with advanced radar facilities, likely explored such interactions, as their ionospheric studies informed their stricter RF standards (Zalyubovskaya, 1977). While Massey’s article does not directly address gravity waves, her call for interdisciplinary collaboration suggests that atmospheric dynamics could be relevant to understanding non-ionizing radiation’s environmental impacts.

Modern research, such as studies following the 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption, confirms gravity waves’ influence on TIDs, with electromagnetic conjugacy observed across hemispheres (Zhang et al., 2022). These findings suggest that mesospheric gravity waves could modulate ambient electromagnetic fields, potentially contributing to non-thermal effects on biological systems, though no direct evidence links this to Massey’s concerns. For example, RF-induced oxidative stress, noted in modern studies (Yakymenko et al., 2016), could theoretically be influenced by ionospheric variability, but this remains speculative without further research.

Interconnectedness: A Call for Interdisciplinary Action

The interconnectedness of Massey’s concerns—regulatory fragmentation, the thermal vs. non-thermal debate, and potential environmental interactions—underscores the complexity of non-ionizing radiation. The mesosphere’s role in RF propagation, via gravity wave-induced TIDs, highlights how atmospheric science intersects with electromagnetic research, an area Soviet scientists may have explored but U.S. researchers largely overlooked in 1979. The decline in research funding since PL 90-602, coupled with Section 704’s preemption, has stifled progress, leaving the U.S. lagging behind countries like Russia and Switzerland, which adopt precautionary RF standards (Sage & Carpenter, 2012).

Massey’s vision for unified legislation remains unfulfilled in 2025. Proposals to reinvigorate PL 90-602, shift oversight to health-focused agencies like the EPA, or fund non-thermal effect studies face resistance from industry lobbying and scientific inertia. The gravity wave connection, while tangential, exemplifies the interdisciplinary approach Massey advocated, where atmospheric, electromagnetic, and biological sciences converge. Her analogy to gravity reminds us that observable effects—whether apples falling or non-thermal biological impacts—demand attention, even absent a complete theoretical framework.

Conclusion: An Urgent Legacy

Massey’s 1979 proposal was a forward-thinking plea for science and policy to unite against the risks of non-ionizing radiation. Forty-six years later, her warnings about regulatory fragmentation and the thermal vs. non-thermal debate resonate as exposure to RF radiation skyrockets with 5G and IoT devices. The potential role of gravity waves, while not directly addressed by Massey, highlights the need for interdisciplinary research to explore environmental interactions with electromagnetic radiation. As advocacy groups push for regulatory reform and courts challenge the FCC’s outdated standards, Massey’s call for a legislative solution remains a beacon. The scientific community must heed her lesson: denying observed effects, like dismissing falling apples before Newton, risks public health in an era of unprecedented electromagnetic exposure.

References

Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Falcioni, L., et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research, 165, 496–503.

FCC. (2019). Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. FCC 19-126.

Hines, C. O. (1960). Internal atmospheric gravity waves at ionospheric heights. Canadian Journal of Physics, 38(11), 1441–1481.

Massey, K. A. (1979). The challenge of non-ionizing radiation: A proposal for legislation. Duke Law Journal, 1979(1), 105–190. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol28/iss1/3

National Toxicology Program. (2018). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation. NTP TR 595.

Public Law 90-602. (1968). Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C. § 263b.

Richmond, A. D. (1978). Gravity wave generation, propagation, and dissipation in the thermosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 83(A9), 4131–4145.

Sage, C., & Carpenter, D. O. (2012). BioInitiative Report: A rationale for biologically-based exposure standards for electromagnetic fields. BioInitiative Working Group.

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 704, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

Vadas, S. L., & Fritts, D. C. (2006). Influence of solar variability on gravity wave structure and dissipation in the thermosphere from tropospheric sources. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 111(A10).

Yakymenko, I., et al. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(2), 186–202.

Zalyubovskaya, N. P. (1977). Biological effects of millimeter radiowaves. Vrachebnoye Delo, 3, 116–119.

Zhang, S.-R., et al. (2022). 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption induced global propagation of ionospheric disturbances via Lamb waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(4).