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.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
By\u00a0Children’s Health Defense Team\u00a0<\/a><\/strong>12<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The Defender is experiencing censorship<\/strong>\u00a0on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by\u00a0subscribing to our top news of the day<\/a>.\u00a0It’s free<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>\u00a0(CHD) won its\u00a0historic case<\/a>\u00a0today against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a case challenging the agency\u2019s decision not to review its\u00a01996 health and safety guidelines<\/a>\u00a0regarding wireless-based technologies including 5G.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit published its\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0Aug.13. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider the\u00a0non-cancer evidence<\/a>\u00a0regarding\u00a0adverse health effects of wireless technology<\/a>\u00a0when it decided that its1996 radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public\u2019s health.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The\u00a0court\u2019s judgment<\/a>\u00a0states:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cThe 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\u2026\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n CHD Chairman and attorney on the case Robert F Kennedy, Jr. said:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cThe court\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n CHD\u2019s case was consolidated with another similar case that was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The organizations filed joint briefs in the case.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n CHD\u2019s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, a telecommunication and administrative law attorney who represented the petitioners in the\u00a0hearing<\/a>, said:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cThis is an historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the\u00a0vast amount of scientific and medical evidence<\/a>showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The court\u2019s decision continued to say:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u00a0\u201c\u2026the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment\u2026The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The petitioners in the case filed\u00a011,000 pages of evidence<\/a>\u00a0of harm from 5G and wireless technology which the FCC ignored, including evidence of already existing widespread sickness.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Attorney Dafna Tachover, CHD\u2019s director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project, who initiated and led the case for CHD, said:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cThe FCC will finally have to recognize the immense suffering by the millions of people who have already been harmed by the FCC\u2019s and FDA\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 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.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n CHD President Mary Holland said:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cThe U.S. Court of Appeals decision in CHD\u2019s 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\u2019s ruling.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n This\u00a0historic case<\/a>\u00a0was filed by CHD on Feb. 2, 2020. The case challenged the agency\u2019s\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0not 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.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 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\u00a0substantial evidence<\/a>\u00a0of profound harms from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn\u2019t reviewed its guidelines or the evidence since, despite\u00a0clear scientific evidence<\/a>\u00a0of harm and growing\u00a0rates of RF-related sickness<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In 2012, the\u00a0Government Accountability Office\u00a0<\/a>of Congress published a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0recommending the FCC reassess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013 the FCC published an\u00a0inquiry<\/a>\u00a0to decide whether the guidelines should be reviewed. It opened\u00a0docket 13-84<\/a>\u00a0for the public to file comments.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 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\u00a0published its decision<\/a>, affirming the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment of the comments or the evidence.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The lawsuit, called a\u00a0Petition for Review<\/a>, contends that the agency\u2019s decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n CHD\u2019s 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\u00a0BioInitiative Report<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n CHD\u2019s 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.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n