Login
“Parents are watching … and we are seeing our children suffer,” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Advocacy Manager Stephanie Locricchio said last week. Locricchio urged lawmakers to take a closer look at the health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
Speaking on the “Culture Apothecary” podcast, Locricchio said families are increasingly concerned about 5G technology and the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure.
“We’re seeing the sickest generation of children coming up right now. And we’re seeing a government that, frankly, is doing nothing about it,” she said.
She accused regulators of “turning a blind eye” to evidence of harm while prioritizing industry interests.
Meanwhile, CHD is pursuing a federal lawsuit to force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to comply with a 2021 court order requiring the agency to explain how its RF radiation exposure limits protect people and the environment.
The lawsuit demands that the FCC comply with the court order by reexamining RF radiation limits, established in 1996, that the court agreed are outdated. “Five years ago, this request was made. We still have received zero from them,” Locricchio said.
Her comments come amid a growing debate over control of wireless infrastructure. Earlier this year, grassroots opposition from local governments and health-freedom advocates helped delay a vote on the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025, a federal bill that would have weakened municipal oversight of cell tower placement near homes, schools and parks.
‘It is not 1996 anymore’
Locricchio said federal RF exposure limits have not kept pace with the explosion of wireless technologies over the past three decades.
The FCC’s current exposure guidelines date to the 1990s, before smartphones, Wi-Fi, smart appliances and other always-connected technologies became commonplace.
“We had flip phones,” Locricchio said, noting that people could not stream videos, connect to Bluetooth devices or use Wi-Fi the way they do today.
She argued that regulators continue to rely on decades-old research that focused mainly on whether RF radiation heats the body, rather than what long-term exposure might do to human health.
“The studies were done in the ’80s on monkeys and rats to just test for heat,” she said. “There’s no long-term studies done on what happens when you have a generation of children growing up from cradle to grave, essentially, and in the womb exposed to RF radiation at all times.”
Researchers have linked RF exposure to a range of health concerns, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, memory problems, brain fog, infertility, neurological problems, learning disabilities and cancer.
Yet, the FCC has never adequately explained why its current exposure limits remain sufficient, Locricchio said. “This technology is here, and it comes at a cost,” she added.
Exposure now comes from both personal devices — including cellphones, smart watches and wireless earbuds — and infrastructure that people cannot easily avoid, such as cell towers, small-cell antennas and smart utility meters.
“The combined radiation that we’re exposed to between the voluntary and the involuntary exposure is off the charts,” she said — and children “absorb 10 times more than adults.”
“And there is no science that supports that this is healthy for humans or for the environment,” she said.
“It is not 1996 anymore,” Locricchio added. “We’re in 2026, and we are surrounded by this invisible toxin that is known to cause harm.”
Law shields telecom companies so ‘if you are harmed … there’s no way to sue’
A major focus of the podcast was Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Locricchio said Section 704 prevents local governments from rejecting cell towers based on health or environmental concerns. Communities can still consider zoning, aesthetics, historic preservation, fire safety and property values, she said, but not potential health impacts.
She pointed to Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where residents reported becoming ill after a cell tower was installed nearby.
“The Telecom Act of 1996 eliminated the ability for local communities to cite any impacts from health or environmental concerns as a reason not to put a tower,” she said. “Years later, you’re seeing cancer rates increase on that block.”
She also cited a report by the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology, which recommended keeping cell towers at least 1,640 feet from homes, schools and other places where people gather.
Yet cell towers are increasingly being placed close to homes and apartments.
“You’re seeing cell towers popping up right outside of windows,” Locricchio said. “And what you need to know is that exposure is real. You can’t feel it, you can’t see it, you can’t smell it, but it is impacting you.”
She said the law shields telecom companies from health-related liability.
“If you are harmed by wireless radiation, a 5G tower near your home, there is essentially nothing you can do,” she said. “There’s no recourse. There’s no way to sue for damages.”
Locricchio said the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025 would have further weakened local oversight by streamlining approvals for towers and antennas and limiting opportunities for public input. The proposal stated that local governments “may not deny, and shall approve” applications for most cell towers and antennas on practically any structure, overriding local zoning laws.
The bill was “basically clearing the path for telecom companies to just build cell towers wherever, whenever they want,” she said.
The U.S. House of Representatives postponed a vote on the measure in April following pressure from grassroots opposition.
‘Fox guarding the hen house’
Locricchio said close ties between regulators and the telecommunications industry have led to a “fox guarding the hen house” scenario.
She pointed to a sharp divide between independent and industry-funded research on RF radiation safety.
“Two-thirds of independent scientific studies show harm. Two-thirds of the industry-funded studies show no harm,” Locricchio said. “They’re buying and paying for science just like all of these other corporate industries.”
She called it “the same exact playbook” used by Big Tobacco, Big Food and Big Pharma to create “this wheel of illness and disease and suffering that’s happening in this country.”
Locricchio also criticized policymakers who she believes have ignored evidence of potential risks.
She recalled a meeting between wireless-radiation advocates and a staff member for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees the FCC.
According to Locricchio, the staffer told the group, “I’ve never seen anything to show any concern when it comes to health impacts related to wireless radiation.”
She argued that many elected officials have chosen not to confront evidence that could challenge industry-backed policies.
“The lobbying industries have really taken over our government,” Locricchio said.
“A lot of these politicians have to just cover their ears, close their eyes” because they know that acknowledging the issue and allowing it to happen would require confronting “long-term impacts” that affect “generations to come,” she said.
As agencies continue to dismiss concerns about wireless radiation, more Americans are questioning whether public health institutions are acting in the people’s best interest, Locricchio said.
“It’s really hard for people to wrap their brains around the fact that these agencies that were supposed to be put in place to protect public health are failing so miserably,” she said. “I think the silver lining of COVID was it eroded that trust.”
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. 
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
AirPods are ‘like sticking your head in the microwave’
While calling for regulatory changes, Locricchio also urged listeners to reduce wireless exposure in their own homes.
She recommended hardwiring internet connections when possible, turning off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth when not in use, using airplane mode, limiting children’s screen time and creating device-free sleeping spaces.
“Distance is your friend,” she said, describing physical separation from wireless devices as one of the easiest ways to reduce exposure.
She encouraged families to examine the wireless technologies they use every day, including routers, smart meters, baby monitors, smart appliances and wearable devices.
AirPods are “sort of like sticking your head in the microwave,” Locricchio warned.
Newer wireless technologies also raise questions about privacy and surveillance.
“The 6G that they’re developing right now has sensing capability,” she said. “It’s been said that once 6G is deployed, it will actually have the capability to see through the walls of people’s homes. … How is it legal? How is it allowed?”
Locricchio urged listeners to be more informed and involved.
People should not become complacent by “just blindly believing” industry representatives and self-described experts, she said. Instead, she called on the public to do its own research, question prevailing narratives and closely observe “what is happening in our world.”
Locricchio encouraged listeners to participate in CHD’s action alert campaign, which calls on federal officials to update the FCC’s exposure guidelines and pause further wireless expansion until that review is completed.
“It’s so important that people listening take these actions,” she said. “These one-click actions really do make a difference.”
Watch CHD’s Stephanie Locricchio on ‘Culture Apothecary’ here:
Related articles in The Defender
- Children’s Health Defense Seeks to Force FCC to Comply With 2021 Ruling
- Breaking: Grassroots Opposition Sinks Bill to Limit Local Control Over Cell Towers — for Now
- People Living Near Cell Towers at Greater Risk of Chronic Immune Stress
- Wireless Radiation Limits at Least 200 Times Too High to Protect Against Cancer Risks
- ‘New Phase of Attack’: Children’s Health Defense Tells FCC to Protect People, or ‘Get Out of the Way’
