- SDVOSB — Under Review
- DVBE — Under Review
- SBE — Approved
- DBE — Submission Pending Portal Access
- MBE — Under Review
Organizations that deploy publicly facing wireless and connected systems have long relied on FCC compliance and technical performance to demonstrate responsibility.
That assumption is now being questioned — particularly where children and other vulnerable populations are involved.
Recent federal developments have shifted how duty of care is evaluated after the fact, when decisions are reviewed by boards, auditors, regulators, parents, or the public.
This site explains what changed, why it matters, and where institutions are now exposed.
A recent federal ruling questioned whether existing FCC wireless-exposure guidelines adequately protect children and other vulnerable populations.
The ruling did not prohibit wireless systems.
It did not invalidate existing deployments.
It did something more consequential:
It challenged whether reliance on FCC compliance alone is sufficient to demonstrate reasonable duty of care when decisions are later scrutinized.
For schools, public agencies, and publicly accessible environments, this introduces a new reality:
Decisions that once appeared settled may now be judged under a different standard — long after they were made.
If a decision were challenged today, could your organization clearly explain why it was reasonable based on what was known then?
Most institutions are not accused of wrongdoing.
They are asked to explain their decisions.
When scrutiny surfaces — through a board inquiry, audit, parent concern, protest, or media attention — the question is rarely:
“Did the system work?”
The question becomes:
“Why did you choose this approach, given what was known at the time?”
Organizations that struggle are not careless.
They lack a clear, consolidated record of decision reasonableness.
That gap is where exposure lives.
This issue is surfacing fastest where:
Including:
If your organization operates in these environments, this is no longer theoretical.
Wireless Radiation Specialists provides independent governance review for high-impact wireless and connected-system decisions.
We do not design systems.
We do not select vendors.
We do not advocate outcomes.
Our role is singular:
To document whether a decision process would be considered reasonable, defensible, and duty-of-care aligned if challenged later under changed conditions.
Our work is designed to withstand:
This work is not:
We operate outside implementation and procurement so our assessments remain independent and defensible.
Prime contractors increasingly recognize that:
As scrutiny rises, primes are exposed alongside their public-sector clients.
Independent governance review is becoming a differentiator — not an add-on.
Institutions are not judged on perfection.
They are judged on whether decisions were:
If your organization is relying on FCC compliance alone to demonstrate duty of care for publicly facing wireless or connected-system decisions, this site explains why that assumption may no longer hold.