{"id":79563,"date":"2021-08-15T14:04:18","date_gmt":"2021-08-15T18:04:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=79563"},"modified":"2021-08-15T14:06:23","modified_gmt":"2021-08-15T18:06:23","slug":"check-out-this-historic-court-ruling-against-wireless-communication","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=79563","title":{"rendered":"Check Out This ‘Historic Court Ruling’ Against Wireless Communication"},"content":{"rendered":"

EHT WINS IN HISTORIC DECISION, FEDERAL COURT ORDERS FCC TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IGNORED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWING HARM FROM WIRELESS RADIATION<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Environmental Health Trust<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

EHT WINS COURT CHALLENGE!\u00a0<\/b><\/h1>\n

IN HISTORIC DECISION, FEDERAL COURT ORDERS FCC TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IGNORED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWING HARM FROM WIRELESS RADIATION\u00a0<\/b><\/h1>\n

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.<\/i><\/p>\n

Stay updated with the latest EHT news by signing up for\u00a0Environmental Health Trust\u2019s newsletter.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\u00a0ruled in<\/a>\u00a0the 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 \u201carbitrary and capricious.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court held that the FCC failed to respond to \u201crecord evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission\u2019s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.\u201d Further, the agency demonstrated \u201ca complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Register For EHT\u2019s Historic Press Conference<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Participants<\/div>\n
Dr. Devra Davis, EHT President<\/div>\n
Edward B. Myers, EHT attorney<\/div>\n
Theodora Scarato, EHT Executive Director<\/div>\n
Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology and former President of Microsoft Canada<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In this press conference we will share key takeaways from the winning\u00a0August 13, 2021 ruling\u00a0<\/a>in EHT et al., v the FCC and share next steps to hold the federal government accountable.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Date: Monday August 16, 2021<\/div>\n
Time: 12:00 Noon Eastern\/ 9:00 AM Pacific Time<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Registration Link:<\/div>\n
https:\/\/us02web.zoom.us\/webinar\/register\/WN_W6TB8fnQTS6uDaGrWzidtQ\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n

\u201cWe 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,\u201d said Dr. Devra Davis, president of Environmental Health Trust.<\/p>\n

Environmental Health Trust will be holding a press conference on Monday . Time TBA.<\/p>\n

Edward B. Myers, attorney for Environmental Health Trust, the lead petitioner in the case, EHT et al. v. the FCC stated, \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI 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,\u201d 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. \u201cIt 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.\u201d\u00a0The American Academy of Pediatrics\u2019 submission to the FCC<\/a>\u00a0called for a review of safety limits to protect children and pregnant women.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s conclusions are provided without explanation.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile 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\u2019s unexplained adoption of an unreasoned analysis just compounds rather than vitiates the analytical void. Said another way, two wrongs do not make a right,\u201d the court wrote.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The court ordered the commission to \u201c(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.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Download August 13, 2021 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The landmark case centers around the FCC\u2019s 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\u2019s outdated limits place Americans everywhere at risk, especially in the era of 5G.<\/p>\n

In response to the court\u2019s historic ruling, Environmental Health Trust and petitioners released the additional following statements:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President Environmental Health Trust, author of\u00a0Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It and How to Protect Your Family<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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 \u2014 ignored by the FCC \u2014 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEnvironmental Health Trust submitted\u00a0hundreds of pages<\/a>\u00a0of 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\u2019s 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\u2019s way everyday.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cWhile we celebrate today\u2019s 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\u2019s\u00a0letter to President Biden<\/a>, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Theodora Scarato MSW, Executive Director of\u00a0<\/b>Environmental Health Trust\u00a0<\/b><\/a>and a petitioner in the case.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a win for our children, our future, and our environment. The court\u2019s 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 \u2018not constitute a reasoned explanation for the Commission\u2019s decision.\u2019This 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Statement by Cindy Franklin of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, an organization that was a petitioner in the case.<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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\u2019s so-called \u2018safe\u2019 exposure guidelines.\u201d<\/p>\n

Statement of Liz Barris of The People\u2019s Initiative Foundation.<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThis 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Statement of Ellen Marks, President of California Brain Tumor Association<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cWe are thrilled that the court has ruled against the FCC and has shed light on\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Excerpt of Statement by Dr. Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cToday 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 \u201cprovide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer\u201d and justify its testing procedures for cellphones and other wireless devices.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I hope this ruling serves as a wake-up call to the Congress and the Administration. In 2015, a\u00a0<\/b>Harvard publication<\/a><\/b>\u00a0<\/b>investigated\u00a0<\/b>industry\u2019s control over the FCC, \u201cAs 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.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u2019s research on wireless radiation in the 1990\u2019s. 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\u2019s $30 million study which found\u00a0\u201cclear evidence\u201d 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.<\/a><\/div>\n


\nAbout the Case<\/b><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u2019s case was then consolidated with a separate case filed by Children\u2019s 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\u2019s Health Defense was represented by attorney Scott McCollough and Robert Kennedy Jr. Evidentiary briefs were jointly filed. Scott McCullough represented Environmental Health Trust, Children\u2019s Health Defense, and petitioners in the oral arguments.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Oral arguments\u00a0<\/a>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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Environmental Health Trust attorney Edward B. Myers previously intervened in the\u00a0successful case<\/a>\u00a0of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes against the FCC. In this earlier case, the\u00a0court upheld<\/a>\u00a0the relevance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NRDC filed an\u00a0amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0in the EHT et al., v FCC case as well.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The FCC is represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis, and Richard Kiser Welch.<\/p>\n

Final Court Ruling<\/h2>\n