The FCC standards for antennas are based on avoiding that heating effect and are set well below where heating would be triggered. Critics argue that there are other possible biological effects besides heating but that the government is failing to look for those. Federal standards also don' t take into account long-term exposure or exposure to more vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women. The industry counters that it operates far below the federal standards, that the radiofrequency technology has existed for years and that the protests over health issues are nearly nonexistent compared to the number of sites. It's our position you can't prove a negative in science.
All science can do is take a subject and look at it a thousand different ways.
A scientist will say we tested it a thousand different ways, and we found no harmful effects. But that leaves scientists to conclude there are always more tests that could be done, Larson noted. And he's right. Richard Hoffman, the chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said there's currently no way to know about the safety of the antennas. A review of the research on radiofrequency by a group of scientists for the journal Radiation Research makes the same point.