RSS Feed
August 18th, 2021 
Awake Goy Following by : EHT Wins in Historic Decision, Federal Court Orders FCC to Explain Why It Ignored Scientific Evidence Showing Harm from Wireless Radiation – Environmental Health Trust
August 13, 2021
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
By Children’s Health Defense Team
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) won its historic case today against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a case challenging the agency’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines regarding wireless-based technologies including 5G.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit published its decision Aug.13. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider the non-cancer evidence regarding adverse health effects of wireless technology when it decided that its1996 radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public’s health.
The court’s judgment states:
“The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”
CHD Chairman and attorney on the case Robert F Kennedy, Jr. said:
“The court’s decision exposes the FCC and FDA as captive agencies that have abandoned their duty to protect public health in favor of a single-minded crusade to increase telecom industry profits.”
CHD’s case was consolidated with another similar case that was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The organizations filed joint briefs in the case.
CHD’s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, a telecommunication and administrative law attorney who represented the petitioners in the hearing, said:
“This is an historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.
The court’s decision continued to say:
“…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment…The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”
The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology which the FCC ignored, including evidence of already existing widespread sickness.
Attorney Dafna Tachover, CHD’s director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project, who initiated and led the case for CHD, said:
“The FCC will finally have to recognize the immense suffering by the millions of people who have already been harmed by the FCC’s and FDA’s unprecedented failure to protect public health. Finally the truth is out. I am hopeful that following this decision, the FCC will do the right thing and halt any further deployment of 5G.”
The court ruling was a two-to-one panel decision. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote the majority opinion. Judge Patricia Millett joined him and Judge Karen Henderson, who presided over the panel, issued a dissent.
CHD President Mary Holland said:
“The U.S. Court of Appeals decision in CHD’s case against the FCC reaffirms my faith in the judiciary. In these chaotic days, courts can still hold out the hope for sober-minded decisions according to the rule of law. I eagerly await FCC action in compliance with the court’s ruling.”
This historic case was filed by CHD on Feb. 2, 2020. The case challenged the agency’s decision not to review its 25-year-old radio-frequency emissions (RF) guidelines which regulate the radiation emitted by wireless technology devices (such as cell phones and iPads) and infrastructure (cell towers, Wi-Fi and smart-meters), and to promulgate biologically and evidence-based guidelines that adequately protect public health.
In 1996, the FCC adopted guidelines which only protect consumers from adverse effects occurring at levels of radiation that cause thermal effects (temperature change in tissue), while ignoring substantial evidence of profound harms from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn’t reviewed its guidelines or the evidence since, despite clear scientific evidence of harm and growing rates of RF-related sickness.
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office of Congress published a report recommending the FCC reassess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013 the FCC published an inquiry to decide whether the guidelines should be reviewed. It opened docket 13-84 for the public to file comments.
Thousands of comments and scientific evidence by scientists, medical organizations and doctors, as well as hundreds of comments by people who have become sick from this radiation were filed in support of new rules. Nevertheless, on Dec. 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and published its decision, affirming the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment of the comments or the evidence.
The lawsuit, called a Petition for Review, contends that the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
CHD’s lawsuit was joined by nine individual petitioners. Petitioners include Professor David Carpenter MD, a world-renowned scientist and public health expert who is co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most comprehensive review of the science on RF effects; physicians who see the sickness caused by wireless radiation in their clinics; and a mother whose son died of a cell phone-related brain tumor.
CHD’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However it was transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit where it was joined with a similar lawsuit filed by the Environmental Health Trust and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. The main brief and the reply brief were filed jointly by all petitioners.
EHT Wins in Historic Decision, Federal Court Orders FCC to Explain Why It Ignored Scientific Evidence Showing Harm from Wireless Radiation – Environmental Health Trust
Aug, 13
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges in favor of environmental health groups and petitioners; finds FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to respond to comments on environmental harm.
Stay updated with the latest EHT news by signing up for Environmental Health Trust’s newsletter.
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” Register For EHT’s Historic Press Conference ParticipantsDr. Devra Davis, EHT PresidentEdward B. Myers, EHT attorneyTheodora Scarato, EHT Executive DirectorFrank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology and former President of Microsoft Canada In this press conference we will share key takeaways from the winning August 13, 2021 ruling in EHT et al., v the FCC and share next steps to hold the federal government accountable. Date: Monday August 16, 2021Time: 12:00 Noon Eastern/ 9:00 AM Pacific Time Registration Link:https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_W6TB8fnQTS6uDaGrWzidtQ
“We are delighted that the court upheld the rule of law and found that the FCC must provide a reasoned record of review for the thousands of pages of scientific evidence submitted by Environmental Health Trust and many other expert authorities in this precedent setting case. No agency is above the law. The American people are well served,” said Dr. Devra Davis, president of Environmental Health Trust.
Environmental Health Trust will be holding a press conference on Monday . Time TBA.
Edward B. Myers, attorney for Environmental Health Trust, the lead petitioner in the case, EHT et al. v. the FCC stated, “The court granted the petitions for review because, contrary to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its assertion that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.”
“I am very pleased to see that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the FCC ignored decades of studies about the potential health harms of cell phone radiation and must adequately review this material before making a decision about new regulations of cell phones,” said Dr. Jerome Paulson, former American Academy of Pediatrics Environmental Health Council Chair and now Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics and Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences and Milken Institute School of Public Health. “It is very important that the court ruled that the FCC must address the impacts of radiofrequency radiation on the health of children amassed since 1996.” The American Academy of Pediatrics’ submission to the FCC called for a review of safety limits to protect children and pregnant women.
In overturning the FCC determination for its lack of reasoned decision making, the court wrote that the commission cannot rely on agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if the FDA’s conclusions are provided without explanation.
“While imitation may be the highest form of flattery, it does not meet even the low threshold of reasoned analysis required by the APA under the deferential standard of review that governs here. One agency’s unexplained adoption of an unreasoned analysis just compounds rather than vitiates the analytical void. Said another way, two wrongs do not make a right,” the court wrote.
The court further noted that the FCC failed to respond to approximately 200 comments on the record by people who experienced illness or injury from electromagnetic radiation sickness.
The court ordered the commission to “(i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”
The landmark case centers around the FCC’s decision not to update its 1996 exposure limits for wireless radiation from cell phones, cell towers, and wireless devices. Environmental Health Trust experts have long argued that the FCC’s outdated limits place Americans everywhere at risk, especially in the era of 5G.
In response to the court’s historic ruling, Environmental Health Trust and petitioners released the additional following statements:
Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President Environmental Health Trust, author of Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It and How to Protect Your Family.
“If cell phones were a drug they would have been banned years ago. 5G would never have been allowed to market. An ever mounting body of published studies — ignored by the FCC — clearly indicates that exposure to wireless radiation can lead to numerous health effects, especially for children. Research indicates wireless radiation increases cancer risk, damages memory, alters brain development, impacts reproductive health, and much more. Furthermore, the way the FCC measures our daily exposure to cell phone and cell tower radiation is fatally flawed and provides a false sense of security.”
“Environmental Health Trust submitted hundreds of pages of scientific evidence to the FCC over the last several years documenting the scientific data showing harm, the need for health agencies to create safety limits that protect against biological effects, and the urgency for infrastructure policy that prioritizes wired rather wireless communications to reduce public exposure. While there is a lot of work left to do, today’s ruling is an important step in protecting people against the harms caused by wireless radiation exposure. Unfortunately, the telecom industry is now pushing millions of new 5G wireless antennas into neighborhoods and billions of new wireless devices, putting more in harm’s way everyday.
“While we celebrate today’s victory, we must look forward. Where do we go from here? We need a congressional hearing into how this agency operated above the law to ensure it never happens again. Committing to 5G merely ensures commercial success in selling new devices and cannot bridge the digital divide where many disadvantaged groups lack access to basic technologies. As we detail in EHT’s letter to President Biden, the priority for infrastructure should be for wired rather than wireless internet connections. The U.S. needs a federal action plan on the issue of wireless radiation that should be informed by the latest science showing that current levels of radiation can damage human health and the environment.”
Theodora Scarato MSW, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust and a petitioner in the case.
“This is a win for our children, our future, and our environment. The court’s decision should be a wake-up call worldwide. There was no premarket safety testing for cell phones or wireless networks before they came on the market decades ago. As the court points out in the ruling, silence from federal health and environmental agencies does ‘not constitute a reasoned explanation for the Commission’s decision.’This ruling highlights how there has been no scientific review of the full body of scientific research to ensure people and the environment are protected. No federal agency has reviewed science indicating impacts to the brain, reproduction, trees, or wildlife — not the Food and Drug Administration, not the Centers for Disease Control, not the National Cancer Institute, not the Environmental Protection Agency. For decades, each of these agencies has downplayed the health effects of wireless radiation on their public websites. A telecom-financed scientist drafted webpages to be put online by our federal government. When people try to stop a cell tower from being built in front of their homes, they are told by their elected leaders that they cannot consider the issue of health effects due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This has to stop.
“We need an investigation of how our country ended up in this situation and a federal action plan to ensure it never happens again. It is imperative that our federal agencies immediately act to protect human health and the environment.”
Statement by Cindy Franklin of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, an organization that was a petitioner in the case.
“The FCC must now admit that its 25-year-old exposure guidelines are bogus. Our federal regulatory agencies are mandated to protect people and the environment from the known biological harm from exposure to microwave radiofrequency radiation. This ruling shows they have failed to do their jobs. The wireless industry can no longer hide behind the FCC’s so-called ‘safe’ exposure guidelines.”
Statement of Liz Barris of The People’s Initiative Foundation.
“This day is a long time coming! So many people are suffering from the effects of wireless radiation and SO MANY are not even connecting their symptoms, illnesses, cancers, and even deaths to the radiation that is causing it because they trust and believe their government! The FCC failed to respond to ANY of the documentation submitted to them that people are being injured by ALL types of wireless radiation, from cell phones and Wi-Fi to smart meters and cell towers. We need limits, backed by science, that do not harm people or our environment and thus far, the science shows that the only safe wireless radiation is no wireless radiation. Hard wired ethernet connections with plugin portals everywhere for cell phones and internet may be our best bet.”
Statement of Ellen Marks, President of California Brain Tumor Association
“We are thrilled that the court has ruled against the FCC and has shed light on the collusion between the telecom industry. the FCC and the FDA. Too many have suffered needlessly and this madness has to stop. This is definitely a step in the right direction and I am appreciative of the hard work of all involved.”
Excerpt of Statement by Dr. Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley
“Today the dam of denial has begun to crack. A Federal appeals court ruled against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in favor of wireless safety advocates, This ruling represents a victory in the decades-long fight to get our government to adopt wireless radiation exposure limits that protect our health and the environment. The Court ruled that the FCC must “provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer” and justify its testing procedures for cellphones and other wireless devices.”I hope this ruling serves as a wake-up call to the Congress and the Administration. In 2015, a Harvard publicationinvestigatedindustry’s control over the FCC, “As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest.” The FCC has no health expertise and must rely on federal health agencies to provide guidance on setting wireless safety limits. However, Congress defunded the Environmental Protection Agency’s research on wireless radiation in the 1990’s. The CDC has relied on industry-affiliated scientists for wireless radiation recommendations. Although the FDA weighed in with the FCC, the agency erroneously dismissed the results of the research it requested, namely, the National Toxicology Program’s $30 million study which found “clear evidence” of increased cancer incidence from cellphone radiation in male rats and DNA damage in male and female rats and mice from exposure to cellphone radiation.
About the Case
In EHT et al. v. the FCC, petitioners argued that the FCC ignored thousands of pages of research and expert testimony showing harmful effects from wireless radiofrequency radiation to humans, wildlife, and the environment when it decided that the 1996 wireless radiation limits did not need to be updated with a full health and safety review.
Environmental Health Trust filed its case in the Court of Appeals with Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato, MSW. They were represented by attorney Edward B. Myers. EHT’s case was then consolidated with a separate case filed by Children’s Health Defense, Michelle Hertz, Petra Brokken, Dr. David O. Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran, and Paul Stanley M.Ed. Children’s Health Defense was represented by attorney Scott McCollough and Robert Kennedy Jr. Evidentiary briefs were jointly filed. Scott McCullough represented Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense, and petitioners in the oral arguments.
Oral arguments were held January 25, 2021, before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit including Hons. Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins.
Environmental Health Trust attorney Edward B. Myers previously intervened in the successful case of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes against the FCC. In this earlier case, the court upheld the relevance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the EHT et al., v FCC case as well.
The FCC is represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis, and Richard Kiser Welch.
Final Court Ruling
Briefs and Evidence
Amicus Briefs
Docket Links
About Environmental Health Trust
The Environmental Health Trust, a scientific nonprofit, has worked on wireless radiation and health for a decade. EHT scientists have published numerous studies on the harmful health effects of electromagnetic radiation and organized national and international scientific conferences on the issue.
EHT co-founder and president Devra Davis PhD, MPH was a founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and has worked on numerous environmental exposures, from chemicals to lead to air pollution. Among the NAS reports she directed were those advising that tobacco smoke be removed from airplanes and the environments of young children. She was also a Clinton appointee to the Chemical Safety And Hazard Investigation Board,former Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, anda member of the team of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with the Honorable Al Gore in 2007.
EHT Co- founder Dr. Ronald Herbermanfounded the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (UPCI) and helped discover natural killer cells capable of killing cancer. In 2008, Herberman, then UPCI Director, issued the first recommendations by a US medical institution to his faculty and staff that they reduce cell phone radiation in a UPCI memo featured in the New York Times article “Researcher warns of brain cancer risk from cell phones”.
Herberman’s 2008 Memo was included in the first of 27 drafts of the California Department of Public Health cell phone guidance finally issued in 2017 after legal action by Dr. Joel Moskowitz of University of California Berkeley forced the release.
Dr. Davis testified at the 2009 US Senate Subcommittee Hearing “Health Effects of Cell Phone Use” on, not only the science, but also the industry attacks on scientists finding harmful effects at non thermal levels. She also detailed to senators the fine print manufacturers warnings in cell phones to keep the phone at a distance from the body. (Full hearing transcript and CSPAN video) Dr. Ronald Herman testified in the 2008 Congressional Hearing ”Tumors and Cell Phone Use: What the Science Says”on the scientific evidence indicating children are more vulnerable to cell phone radiation and receive higher exposures proportionate to adults. (Full hearing transcript and CSPAN video)
_______________________________
If you like our work please consider to donate :
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
