{"id":15784,"date":"2019-09-05T13:09:55","date_gmt":"2019-09-05T20:09:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=15784"},"modified":"2019-09-05T13:09:55","modified_gmt":"2019-09-05T20:09:55","slug":"nrdc-and-american-tribal-groups-update-on-cell-tower-lawsuits-the-fcc-and-why-you-should-care-about-5g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=15784","title":{"rendered":"NRDC and American Tribal Groups\u2019 Update on Cell Tower Lawsuits, The FCC, and Why You Should Care About 5G"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

By B.N. Frank<\/a><\/p>\n

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect the public by regulating the Telecom Industry.\u00a0 Instead they have a long history of protecting the telecom industry<\/a> at the public\u2019s expense (see 1<\/a>, 2<\/a>).\u00a0 This has become way scarier due to the \u201cRace for <\/em>5G<\/em><\/a>\u201d which involves installing hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of small cells<\/a> in front of homes and everywhere else.<\/p>\n

The <\/strong>Telecom Industry<\/strong><\/a> gave congressional testimony in February that they have no scientific evidence that exposure to <\/strong>5G<\/strong><\/a> is safe.\u00a0 That <\/strong>hasn\u2019t<\/strong> deterred<\/strong><\/a> the FCC or various <\/strong>elected officials<\/strong><\/a>who are still promoting widespread installation.\u00a0 <\/strong>The FCC is also allowing companies to send satellites into space to blast 5G<\/a> from there AND trying to loosen regulations so homeowners can be paid<\/a> to put antennas on their roofs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deregulation order was arbitrary and capricious because it eliminated historic preservation review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including tribal consultation and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for construction of small wireless facilities or small cell radio towers transmitting a cellular signal in an effort to expedite the rollout of the next generation of wireless service known as 5G. The Court of Appeals concluded that the FCC failed to justify its determination that the public interest did not require review of the deployment of hundreds of thousands of small cells.\u00a0 The Court said, \u201cIn particular, the Commission failed to justify its confidence that small cell deployments pose little to no cognizable religious, cultural, or environmental risk, particularly given the vast number of proposed deployments and the reality that the Order will principally affect small cells that require new construction.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In June, NRDC posted an article, \u201c5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care.<\/em>\u201c<\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. While the FCC has limited the review by others, the Commission at the same time has\u00a0refused to update its own health and environmental guidelines<\/strong>. The Commission\u2019s guidelines date from the 1990\u2019s. In 2012, the\u00a0General Accountability Office<\/a> found that the existing guidelines may not reflect current knowledge and recommended that the FCC formally reassess its guidelines. The FCC\u2019s guidelines address only one aspect of potential harm from electromagnetic radiation\u2014heat. The current guidelines do not address other ways in which exposure to increasing electromagnetic radiation from wireless communications can harm human health, as well as the natural systems around us on which all life depends.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Do you care yet?\u00a0 Research has also indicated that exposure to <\/strong>all sources of wireless<\/strong><\/a> radiation is harmful<\/strong> \u2013 <\/strong>not just 5G<\/strong><\/a> \u2013 and <\/strong>children are more vulnerable<\/strong><\/a> to it than adults.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n