Landmark Lawsuit Successful Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety

A joint lawsuit was won against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed on July 30, 2020 by the Environmental Health Trust and the Children’s Health Defense for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies.  This comes at a time when new lucrative 5G Spectrum is being auctioned and fast tracked in communities.  The lawsuit was won by the Petitioners (EHTrust, CDH and others) as per the DC Court of Appeals Decision on August 13, 2021. The Court stated, “Under this highly deferential standard of review, we find the Commission’s order arbitrary and capricious in its failure 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.“ In the ruling the court returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to reexamine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms. The decision could be appealed. Oral arguments were heard by the DC  Court of Appeals January 25,2021.

Earlier OTARD (Over the Air Reception Device) Petition Not Successful

Note that another Petition to Review an FCC ruling on wireless antenna placement on homes was filed Feb 26, 2021 by CHD ( CHD vs FCC OTARD) failed. The original FCC OTARD (Over-the air reception devices) ruling allows quick deployment of wireless in neighborhoods and rural areas without permits or notification that was previously required. It preempts sate and local zoning laws, homeowners associations and deed restrictions. For the first time it allows property owners to place antennas for wireless and data services to their neighbors, including 5G.  Scroll down to see the information and extensive testimony and references filed in the OTARD Petition. An Opening Brief was filed6/23/21.

Updated 6/20/22

Petitioners Win Lawsuit Against Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  for Failing to Protect Public Health 

History of the FCC Reevaluation Standards

• GAO Report (2012)– In July of 2012 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report, Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed. The authors stated, “The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) RF energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not identify maximum exposure in all possible usage conditions…By not formally reassessing its current limit, FCC cannot ensure it is using a limit that reflects the latest research on RF energy exposure. FCC has also not reassessed its testing requirements to ensure that they identify the maximum RF energy exposure a user could experience.” They go on to state,

  “The FCC told GAO that it relies on the guidance of federal health and safety agencies when determining the RF energy exposure limit, and to date, none of these agencies have advised FCC to change the limit. However, FCC has not formally asked these agencies for a reassessment. By not formally reassessing its current limit, FCC cannot ensure it is using a limit that reflects the latest research on RF energy exposure. FCC has also not reassessed its testing requirements to ensure that they identify the maximum RF energy exposure a user could experience. Some consumers may use mobile phones against the body, which FCC does not currently test, and could result in RF energy exposure higher than the FCC limit.” They also note, “There are no federal requirements that manufacturers provide information to consumers about the health effects of mobile phone use.”

  “The FCC Order adopts rules changes originally proposed in 2003.  Changes adopted include making clear the primacy of specific absorption rate (SAR) in determining exposure; establishing that the pinna of the ear will be considered in the same category as extremities of the body when evaluating exposure; clarifying the application of occupational exposure limits and responsibility for compliance evaluation at multiple transmitter sites; and items related to measurement consistency in the medical implant communications service, labeling of occupational wireless devices and labeling and installation of wireless consumer devices.”

• March 29, 2013 -FCC Initiates Reevaluation of RF Safety Standards Inquiry (2013) Docket 13-84.  In 2013 the Federal Communications Commission initiated an inquiry for public input into reevaluating radiofrequency safety standards. Titled Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, Docket 13-84, FCC-13-84 and 03-137 First Report and Order Notice of Inquiry 2013  the Inquiry is to “determine whether there is a need for reassessment of the Commission radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits and policies.” The  report and order notes, “Periodic review of the government’s rules and regulations to ensure they have kept pace with current knowledge and changing needs is an important characteristic of good government, and we here will advance the process of providing a comprehensive review and modification, where appropriate, of this Commission’s various rules pertaining to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for environmental reviews, specifically those reviews related to health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from radio transmitters.”
• August 8, 2019 FCC Votes to Uphold Current Standards for new wireless telecommunications equipment that will emit RF frequencies above 6 Gigahertz (GHz) and titled Resolution of Notice of Inquiry. The FCC press release Aug 8, 2019 states, “The item would maintain the existing RF exposure limits and thus resolve the Commission’s 2013 Notice of Inquiry that sought public input on whether to strengthen or relax its existing RF exposure limits.”  The FCC highlighted a letter from Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health who wrote, “The available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.. and…no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”     
• The FCC issued their report stating, “Upon review of the record, we find no appropriate basis for and thus decline to initiate a rulemaking to reevaluate the existing RF exposure limits. This decision is supported by our expert sister agencies, and the lack of data in the record to support modifying our existing exposure limits. Specifically, no expert health agency expressed concern about the Commission’s RF exposure limits. … “We take to heart the findings of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), an expert agency regarding the health impacts of consumer products, that “[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”

• Dec 4, 2019 The FCC officially “resolved” the reevaluation inquiry  the petitioners state, by ignoring new scientific information that takes into consideration

  • The massive increase in the mix and intensity of radiofrequency radiation the population is exposed to in the last 20 years and will be exponentially exposed to in the coming years
  • Inadequate cell phone safety testing
  • Non-thermal harmful effects of wireless radiation
  • Pulsed and modulated radiation which are more biologically active and harmful
  • Disability from radiation sickness (microwave illness or electro sensitivity)
  • Environmental harm
• April 6, 2020 the Federal Communications Commission opened Docket 19-226 asking for comments on expanding non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RF) human exposure safety limits for new wireless telecommunications equipment that will emit RF frequencies above 6 Gigahertz (GHz),  FCC Docket 19-226 Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
• Comments to the FCC included those individuals suffering adverse health effects from Smart meters to Wi Fi to cellphones who want more restrictive standards as well as industry who asked for removal of barriers to telecom stating health claims were wildly overstated.

• 1) Health Impacts      

  2) Smart Meters    

  3) Electrohypersensitivity    –

  4) Health impacts   

  5)  Heath effects at home and college with exposures

  6) The City of Portland–

  7) The National League of Cities-

  8) The Telecommunications Industry who stated, “there is no credible evidence of health effects from RF radiation within the ICNIRP guidelines..” and “The current FCC, IEEE, and ICNIRP standards all have been determined by the expert groups that developed them and by independent expert panels to provide a substantial margin of safety—up to fifty-fold—for users of consumer RF device.”  

  9) The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Asked for the FCC to ”re-evaluate federal levers to remove barriers to infrastructure investment… such as the transition from large macro towers to small cells …and Streamlining Access to Infrastructure “ and further state, “RF radiation is non-ionizing, and the only biological impact from non-ionizing radiation—tissue warming from absorbing energy—has been thoroughly studied and is well-understood. Exposure to high-power RF radiation can heat tissue (like a microwave oven), but there is no known way it can cause cancer or any of the effects described by some in the record…The Commission’s docket examining these issues, like so many wireless policy fora, has been overrun by a vocal minority who would stand in the way of broadband deployment for fear of potential harm from electromagnetic radiation. This harm is wildly overstated, and holding back growth of next-generation wireless services by giving undue air to these claims would be an injustice to the public interest. “

With over thousand letters and peer reviewed scientific articles presented as testimony to the FCC Docket since 2013, there was hope that this critical issue would finally be addressed, and at the very least some precautionary measures would be advised along with further study of 5G effects prior to the massive 5G rollout that is occurring now. The FCC stated they will maintain their current guidelines for cell phones and cell antennas, and apply these same radiofrequency energy standards to 5G, which has not been studied for health or environmental harm, but is simply assumed safe. The petitioners for the lawsuit are stating this was done through omission and dismissal of the scientific literature. “We need to see justice through in this case.” CHD

The Lawsuit was Filed July 29, 2020

 The Petition against the FCC states that the failure to update telecommunications safety regulations violates elements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”),2 the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), in addition to raising other constitutional issues.  The lawsuit argues that the FCC

• * Failed to engaged in reasoned decision-making and to base its decision on substantial evidence
• * Did not consider the evidence in the record of many individuals suffering the effects of unavoidable exposure to    
•    radiofrequency radiation.
• * Acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner

Timeline

 FCC had 45 days to file its response to the brief and the EH Trust and CHD had 21 days to file their response to FCC response, by October 6, 2020 (filed with extension Oct 19, 2020). The next stage will be a hearing in the court to present their case. The court will then give their decision.  If the outcome is positive it will be the first step in requiring the FCC to review all the evidence. (See responses below)

Update- Nov 20, 2020 the US Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit granted the request for oral arguments and scheduled the hearing for January 25, 2021. The hearing which was virtual and live-streamed can be viewed here.

Update- August 13, 2021 the DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioners, EH Trust and Children’s Health Defense  on most counts and can be viewed here. 

The Petitioners

Environmental Health Trust

The Environmental Health Trust is a non-profit organization founded by Dr. Devra Davis. The organization works on environmental health issues but focuses research and education mostly on health impacts of wireless radiation. When the FDA decision came out in December 2019 a senior advisor to EH Trust Dr. Paul Ben Ishai criticized the report which he said, “flies in the face of the massive scientific evidence that has accumulated” on health harms.For EHT documents on this case go to EHTrust is Taking on the Federal Communications Commission.

Children’s Health Defense

The mission of the non-profit organization, Children’s Health Defense, founded by Robert F Kennedy Jr,  is to protect children from chronic health conditions that have skyrocketed in the last 2 decades. Over half of children now experience one or more chronic health issues. Scientific studies show the trend is worsening. After learning of the potential impacts of wireless technology on children as well as adults, the Children’s Health Defense began a campaign to educate others and take legal action.   Robert Kennedy Jr stood up to powerful interests giving a passionate speech to a large crowd in Berlin, Germany on August 28, 2020, discussing 5G telecommunications, health impacts and democracy. He stated,  “ Our mission at CHD is to end toxic exposures to children. This is an exposure.”  In their Evidentiary Brief Press Conference, several speakers discussed the need for the lawsuit, including a teenager who spoke candidly and compellingly about her severe sensitivity to wireless radiation which she developed in high school.

NRDC

The NRDC, a national non-profit environmental advocacy organization, has petitioned the court to file an amicus brief in order to participate in oral arguments regarding NEPA and the adequacy of environmental review for the construction of wireless infrastructure. NRDC attorney Sharon Buccino states in the petition, “Under the challenged Order, environmental review is tied to the RF limits set by the FCC. As long as a wireless service provider certifies that the construction it proposes meets the FCC’s RF standards, no environmental analysis is required. The FCC’s arbitrary determination that the limits set in 1996 are still adequate today means that environmental review will not occur where it would otherwise if the FCC had followed the mandates of reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act.”

The NRDC Petition further notes,

• The FCC failed to complete an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA before terminating its inquiry into the adequacy of its radiofrequency (RF) standards
• The FCC’s inadequate health standards excuse wireless service providers from conducting environmental review even though these services may expose humans and the environment in which they live to harmful radiation
• The FCC’s order renders any environment review that is done inadequate because it is based on inadequate health standards

The NRDC successfully argued against a 2018 order by the Federal Communications Commission that proposed to eliminate environmental and historic review for certain cell towers and other wireless infrastructure. The court overruled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arguments in favor of Native American tribes August 2019, giving them and all cities the right to require NEPA analysis (or provide proof of exemption) before cell towers are placed.

Amicus Briefs Filed

Amicus from National Resources Defense Fund and Numerous Elected Officials 

Amicus from the Building Biology Institute

Amicus from Attorney Joe Sandri with Statement from Linda Birnbaum, former Director of NIEHS and NTP

Amicus from Dan and Katherine Kleiber

*Thanks to EHTrust for providing these

Responses Filed

FCC Response filed September 22, 2020 stated they

• Reasonably declined to propose new radiofrequency exposure limits
• Properly credited outside experts in declining to propose new limits
• The limits adequately protect children
• Reasonably declined to propose new procedures for measuring radiofrequency exposure from cell phones
• The Commission properly did not address ADA and FHA
• Had no duty under NEPA to supplement its environmental impact statement
• New information has not changed the scientific consensus that the radiofrequency exposure limits are safe

EH Trust and CHD Response to FCC Response filed on Oct 19, 2020 stated

Attorneys for the FCC Lawsuit

The petitioners are represented by Edward B. Myers W. of the Law Office of Edward B. Myers; and W. Scott McCollough of the McCollough Law Firm P.C.

The FCC is represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis and Richard Kiser Welch

Update 2/13/21

Oral Arguments Heard by U.S.  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

On January 25, 2021 oral arguments were heard by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to consider along with an abundance of evidence provided.  Attorney Scott McCollough was given 10 minutes by the court to speak to judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins. The judges had read the petitions,  briefs, as well as evidence submitted to the FCC by citizens and scientists the 6 years the FCC docket was open for comment.  Mr McCollough opened the argument with a quote from a woman who called the FCC to discuss her injury from RF radiation and was told by the FCC, “We don’t deal with humans, we deal with frequencies.” The judges seemed baffled that the FCC regulated health and asked tough questions to both the FCC and Mr. McCollough. 

Listen to the Oral Arguments by Attorney Scott McCollough representing Children’s Health Defense and Environmental Health Trust, Attorney Ashley Boizelle respresenting the Federal Communications Commission,  and the judges remarks on January 25, 2021 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

An article in NextTV News Noted, “The judges appeared concerned that the FCC was relying what appeared to be cursory sign-off by the Food And Drug Administration, pointing out that the record did not cite any input from an FDA committee or FCC working group charged by Congress with reviewing RF standards, and asked the FCC find out by close of business Tuesday whether those committees existed and had reviewed the standards.”

Law 360 reported in a January 25, 2021 article, DC Circ. Picks Apart FCC Over 5G Wireless Safety Review, that, “A DC Circuit panel on Monday appeared skeptical of the Federal Communication’s Support for it’s own findings that cellphones and other connected devices pose no risks to human health.” and questioned whether the FCC properly monitored harm to human or environmental health.  It will be several months for the court to render a decision. 

CHD Files Another FCC Petition as Over-The-Air Reception Devices (OTARD) Ruling Puts 5G Cell Antennas on Homes

A recently passed FCC OTARD Ruling permits private home owners to place fixed “point-to-point cell antennas supporting wireless service on their property, and, for the first time, to extend wireless data/voice services including 5G and satellites, to users on neighboring properties.”  The ruling allows this while eliminating all state and local zoning authority. No permits, homeowners restrictions or notice to neighbors are required.  A Motion to Stay was filed by CHD along with a Reply Motion for Stay. The  Court, however, Denied the Motion. The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filled a Petition to Review against the FCC to stop the ruling on February 26, 2021 to amendpetition to REview  the over-the-air reception devices (OTARD) rule, “because the rule change violates the Constitution and upends long-standing common law personal and property rights. The Commission does not have the power or authority to override rights to bodily autonomy or property-based rights to exclude wireless radiation emitted by third parties from their homes.”  A letter filed by CHD explains the reasoning.  An opening brief  was filed.  Over 15,000 individuals testified in opposition to this rule and this document contains their comments. Petitioners Opening Brief’s Footnotes and References OTARD- CHD vs FCC. Here are 246 comments from children, adults and families being affected by wireless radiation and giving testimony in the Addendum Record Reference. this is a list of references and testimony  in categories including Radiation Sickness, Disabled rights, Assault and Battery, Property Trespass,  Constitution Rights,  Local Control States Rights, Property Values, No notice, General health concerns. An Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner’s was also filed.  The FCC filed an Amicus Brief as well. 

OTARD Petition for Review Fails

The OTARD Petition for REview was  decided in favor of the FCC on February 11, 2022.  OTARD “over-the-air reception devices,” Ruling. Children’s Health Defense et al vs FCC and USA. US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Argued December 7, 2021, Decided February 11, 2022.  https://wearetheevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Panel-Decision-2-11-22.pdf.    

DOCUMENTS- FCC vs EH Trust, Children’s Health Defense et al. 

Briefs 

• Full Opening Brief of Petitioners, August 14, 2020
• FCC Reply Brief to Petitioners, September 22, 2020
• Petitioner’s Reply to the FCC  and Addendum to Petitioners Reply to the FCC, October 19, 2020
• Link to all documents in case such as studies and court cases referenced 
• Court Listener Link that has all filed documents. 

Amicus Briefs 

• Amicus of NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council 
• Amicus of Attorney Joe Sandri including declaration of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
• Amicus of Catherine Kleiber
• Amicus of the Building Biology Institute 

Click on the Volumes Below to See the Links to the Massive Evidence Filed in EHT et al v. FCC Ignored by the FCC

Petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence – 447 exhibits in 27 Volumes —  in support of their  claims. Environmental Health Trust researchers filed 60 of the 447 exhibits.

• Download  Volume 1: Volume 1 Includes FCC Resolution of Notice of Inquiry Order and Notice of Inquiry
• Download  Volume 2: Includes FCC; Comments & reply of the CTIA The Wireless Association & Mobile Manufacturers Forum ET Docket No. 13-84
• Download  Volume 3: Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 2)
• Download  Volume 4: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 3)
• Download  Volume 5: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 4) Research Compilation; Abstracts of Over 600 Studies Published BetweenAugust 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 1)
• Download  Volume 6: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 600 Studies Published Between August 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 2) Research Compilation; Abstracts of 15 New Studies, Dr. Joel Moskowitz Ph.D., 2016, Research Compilation; Studies and Documents; City of Pinole, CA
• Download Volume 7: Includes US Exposures Limits – A History of Their Creation, Comments and Explanations; Eng. Lloyd Morgan, Biosystem & Ecosystem; Birds, Bees and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’: Effects of Mobile Radio and Wireless Communication.Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., 2007, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 1)
• Download  Volume 8: Includes BioInitiative Comments, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 2), NTP; Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environmental Research. Dr. Ron Melnick; 2019 andmore…
• Download  Volume 9: Includes BioInitiative-Modulation; Section 15:Evidence for Disruption by Modulation Role of Physical and Biological Variables in Bioeffects of Non-Thermal Microwaves for Reproducibility, Cancer Risk and Safety Standards, (2012 Supplement), Bioinitiative Working Group; Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF); 2014, Organizations; Environmental Working Group Reply Comments andmore…
• Download Volume 10: BioInitiative-Mechanisms of Harm; Percent Comparison Showing Effect vs No Effect, DNA (Comet Assay), 2017 and Free Radical (Oxidative Stress), 2019, Bio Initiative Working Group; Epidemiological Studies, RF fields epidemiology, Comments by Drs. Lennart Hardell, Fredrik Soderqvist PhD. and Michael Carlberg, MSc. Section 3.5.1.1 Epidemiological Studies (Exhibit B); 2014, BioInitiative Author; Statement of Prof. Martin Blank PhD., PhD.; 2016, and more…
• Download  Volume 11: Dr. Paul Dart MD. (Petitioner) Comments, The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, Problems and Solutions, Prof. Andrew Goldsworthy; 2012, Dr. Richard Meltzer Comments, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure: A Cautionary Tale, Dr. Donald R. Maisch Ph.D. Comments, Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances; Dr. Ron M. Powell, PhD.; 2013 and more…
• Download   Volume 12: Organizations –  Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Neurological and behavior effects οf Non-Ionizing Radiation emitted from mobile devices on children: Steps to be taken ASAP for the protection of children and future generations. Presentation Slides; 2016, Organizations; Austrian Medical Association, Environmental Medicine Evaluation of Electromagnetic Fields; Dr. Jerd Oberfeld MD.; 2007, Organizations; The American Academy of Pediatrics, Letter to the FCC; 2013 and more…
• Download  Volume 13: Organizations; Appeal to the FCC Signed by 26,000 People and Organized by the Environmental Working Group, 2013 (Tab 68 Part 2), Organizations; Freiburger Appeal –Doctors Appeal; 2002, Organizations; Benevento Resolution, The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), 2006, Organizations; The Porto Alegre Resolution; 2009 and more…
• Download Volume 14:  Mechanisms of Harm; Meta-Analysis, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med (Yakymenko et al).; 2016, Mechanisms of Harm; Blood Brain Barrier; Increased Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days after Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Pathophysiology (Nittby, Salford et al); 2009, Mechanisms of Harm; DNA Damage; Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures; Dr. Paul Dart MD.; 2013 and more…
• Download   Volume 15: Prenatal & Children; Doctors and Scientists Letters on Wi-Fi in Schools, Dr. Devra Davis PhD., President of Environmental Health Trust (Petitioner) Comments, Children; Letter to Montgomery County Schools, Prof. Martha Herbert MD., PhD.; 2015, Neurological – Children; A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Environ Health Perspect. (Foerster et al); 2018, Prenatal & Children; Cell phone use and behavioral problems in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health. (Divan et al); 2012 and more…
• Download  Volume 16: Prenatal & Children; “Cell Phones & WiFi – Are Children, Fetuses and Fertility at Risk?”; 2013, Prenatal & Children; Safe Schools 2012, Medical and Scientific Experts Call for Safe Technologies in Schools,Prenatal & Children – Stem Cells; Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives (Markova, Belyaev et al); 2010, Radiation Sickness – Children; Angela Tsiang Comments and more…
• Download  Volume 17: 5G; FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ‘The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World’; 2016, 5G; Letter to House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology; Tsiang; 2016, 5G; Ask Congress to Vote No, 2016, 5G; 5G Spectrum Frontiers -The Next Great Unknown Experiment On Our Children, Compilation of Letters to Congress; 2016, 5G;What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells and more…
• Download  Volume 18: Cell Phones; Research Abstracts of Over 700 Studies Showing Health Effects from Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation; Prof. Henri Lai ,(Tab 142 Part 2), Cancer – Brain Tumors; Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with the use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health. (Hardell and Caarlsberg); 2013 , Cancer-Brain Tumors; Mobile phone use and brain tumor risk: early warnings, early actions? (Gee, Hardell Carlsberg) (Chapter 21 of Report: “Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution”); 2013, Jullian Gehman Esq. Comments and more…
• Download  Volume 19: Dr. Joel Moskowitz PhD. Reply Comments, Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S., Cancer – Children; Cell Phone Radiation: Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children’s Health; Environmental Working Group; 2009, Cell Phones – Plants; Review: Weak Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From Mobile Phone Radiation on Plants. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (Malka N. Halgamuge); 2016, Testing; Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access. Prof. Om P. Gandhi PhD.; 2019, Testing – Children; Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research. (C. Fernandez et al); 2018 and more…
• Download Volume 20: Industry Influence; World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – a Hard Nut to Crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology. Prof. Lennart Hardell MD. PhD.; 2017, Industry Influence; Business Bias As Usual: The Case Of Electromagnetic Pollution. Prof. Levis, Prof. Gennaro, Prof. Garbisa, Industry Influence; Prof. Martha Herbert MD PhD., Harvard Pediatric Neurologist Letter to Los Angeles Unified School District; 2013, Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 1) and more.
• Download Volume 21: Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 2), Industry Influence; Illusion and Escape: The Cell Phone Disease Quagmire. Dr. George L. Carlo PhD., JD.; 2008, Industry Influence; Quote of Prof. Henry Lai PhD from NY Times Article about Percent of Negative, Studies Funded By Industry; 2013, Industry Influence; Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health. Christopher Ketcham, GQ; 2010 and more…
• Download  Volume 22: US Agencies; US Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency, Radiation; 1971 (Tab 185 Part 2), US Agencies; US Department of Labor Comment, Radiation Sickness; Exemption for Fire stations, California Assembly Bill No. 57 (2015), codified at Cal. Gov. Code 65964.1, Radiation Sickness – Firefighters; Susan Foster Comments, Radiation Sickness; Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Dr. Erica MalleryBlythe; 2014 and more…
• Download  Volume 23: Radiation Sickness; Brent Dalton Comments, Radiation Sickness; Elizabeth Barris (Petitioner) Comments, Radiation Sickness; Olemara Comments, Radiation Sickness; Melissa White Comments, Radiation Sickness; Carol Moore Comments, Radiation Sickness; Michele Hertz (Petitioner) Comments and more…
• Download Volume 24: Radiation Sickness; Catherine Morgan Comments, Radiation Sickness; Angelica Rose Comments, Radiation Sickness; Brian J. Bender Comments, Radiation Sickness; Maggie Connolly Comments, Radiation Sickness; Gregory Temmer Comments, Radiation Sickness; Bernice Nathanson Comments, and more…
• Download  Volume 25: Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twelve People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Nine People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twenty People, Collected byStopSmartMeters; 2013, Radiation Sickness: Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Peter Rose; 2010, Radiation Sickness; Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Steven Magee, European Manifesto in support of a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and more…
• Download  Volume 26: Individual Rights; R. Paul and Kathleen Sundmark Reply Comments, Individual Rights & ADA; Cynthia Edwards Comments, Individual Rights; Diana Ostermann, Comments, Individual Rights; BC Human Rights Tribunal approves smart meter class action, Citizens for Safe Technology, andmore...
• Download   Volume 27: Testing – Children; Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (Gandhi et al); 2011, BioInitiative Reply Comments, Environmental Health Trust INTERNATIONAL POLICY BRIEFING: Cautionary Policy on Radiofrequency Radiation Actions by Governments, Health Authorities and Schools Worldwide

Thanks to EH Trust for providing the documents.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” – Robert F. Kennedy

Articles

Press Release Children’s Health Defense. Principal Brief Filed in Landmark Case Against FCC on 5G and Wireless Health Impacts.July 30, 2020.  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Untitled-document1.pdf

Petition for Review Docket No. 03-137 and Docket No. 13-84 to United States Court of Appeals. Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense vs FCC.20-1025 (Lead); 20-1138 (Consolidated) Files 7/29/20. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Joint-Brief-7-29-20.pdf

Environmental Health Trust is Taking on the Federal Communications Commission.Summary of Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC. https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/

Press Conference Evidentiary Brief Submission. CHD vs FCC. July 31, 2020. Attorneys Dafna Tachover, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Scott McCullough, with Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Ysobel Gallo with microwave illness,  Virginia Farver,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zUelXUKzSk

GAO Report. Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed.  July 2012. https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592901.pdf

FCC 19-226 Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Federal Registry April 6, 2020   https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-04-06/pdf/2020-06966.pdf

Letter to FCC by Congressman Peter DeFAzio regarding Reevaluation of Safety Standards. April 15, 2019. https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/46057/Rep-Peter-DeFazio—Letter-to-FCC-on-5G

Letter to FCC from the National League of Cities, The National Association of Counties,  the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. Oct 2, 2017. FCC Letter NATOA NLC NACo Mayors Docket 13-84

Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Melnick RL. Environ Res. 2019 Jan;168:1-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30243215/

FCC Issues New Radiofrequency Safety Rules, Seeks Comments on Additional Measures. Dec 6, 2019. National Law Review. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fcc-issues-new-radio-frequency-safety-rules-seeks-comment-additional-measures

EH Trust submissions for FCC regarding Reevaluation of Safety Standards– https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=13-84&q=filers.name:(Environmental%20Health%20Trust)&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

Comments to FCC on Reevaluation of Safety Standards by Timothy Schoechle, PhD . June 2, 2020.  https://mdsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/schoechle-fcc_19-126_comment-2020-06-02.pdf

FCC Resolution of Inquiry reevaluation of safety standards.Docket 03-137 and Docket 13-84.  https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf

CHAIRMAN PAI PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN CURRENT RADIOFREQUENCY EXPOSURE SAFETY STANDARDS.  FCC’s RF Exposure Limits for Handheld Devices are Among the Most Stringent in the Aug 8, 2019.  https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-maintain-current-rf-exposure-safety-standards or. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358968A1.pdf

FDA Letter from Dr. Jeffrey Shuren to FCC regarding standards for new 5G technologies . April 24, 2019.https://www.fda.gov/media/135022/download

Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health on the recent National Toxicology Program draft report on radiofrequency energy exposure.Feb 2, 2018. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-devices-and-radiological-health-recent-national

FCC deems cellphones with 5G tech safe. Aug 8, 2019. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-deems-5g-safe/

Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. AB Miller et al. Frontiers in public Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701402/

IEEE Revision to IEEE Standard C95.1-2005 for frequencies between 0 Hz and 300 GHz. Requested 2010. https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject-web/public/view.html#pardetail/4007

FCC Radiofrequency Safety  https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0

At FDA, a new goal, then a push for speedy device reviews. AP News. Matthew Perrone. November 27, 2018. https://apnews.com/9f8ea03a4d324d1ba5585680d280804b

Prevalence and Costs of Five Chronic Conditions in Children.  J Sch Nurs. 2016 Oct; 32(5);357-364. Miller GF et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27044668/

A national and state profile of leading health problems and health care quality for US children: key insurance disparities and across-state variations. (2011). Bethell  CD et al.  Acad Pediatric. May-Jun 2011;11(3 Suppl):S22-33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21570014/

Prevalence of Chronic Health Conditions in Children With Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Literature Review. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2011)  Vol 49, Issue 2, April 1, 2011.Oeseburg B et al. https://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-abstract/49/2/59/1533/Prevalence-of-Chronic-Health-Conditions-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Dynamics of Obesity and Chronic Health Conditions Among Children and Youth. (2010) Van Cleave J et al. JAMA. February 17, 2010.  2010;303(7):623-630. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185391

Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997-2008. (2011) Boyle CA et al. Pediatrics. 2011 Jun;127(6):1034-42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21606152/

Robert F Kennedy Speaks to Berlin Crowd about 5G, Peace, Freedom and Democracy. August 29, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=rOfEzw_V-Sw&feature=emb_logo

5G “small cell” proliferation takes a hit in Cambridge MA. Nexus NewsFeed. August 26, 2020. Scott McCullough.  https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/health-healing/5g-small-cell-proliferation-takes-a-hit-in-cambridge-ma/

NRDC PETITION FOR REVIEW OF FINAL ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.Filed 8/5/20. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/amicus-brief-fcc-20200805.pdf

How the U.S. Became an Inferior Communication Nation. The Republican-controlled FCC has not only removed nearly all regulations but is allowing private companies to take over state utility wired networks. David Rosen, Nov 9, 2020. https://progressive.org/dispatches/us-inferior-communication-nation-rosen-201109/

DC Circ. Picks Apart FCC Over 5G Wireless Safety Review. January 25, 2021. https://www.law360.com/articles/1347648/dc-circ-picks-apart-fcc-over-5g-wireless-safety-review

Court Hears Challenge to FCC’s 5G Radiofrequency Guidelines. January 25, 2021. John Eggerton.  Next Broadcasting and Cable News. https://www.nexttv.com/news/court-hears-challenge-to-fccs-5g-radiofrequency-guidelines

FCC Faces Skeptical Appeals Judges in Radiation Emissions Case. January 25, 2021. Bloomberg law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/fcc-faces-skeptical-appeals-judges-in-radiation-emissions-case?fbclid=IwAR07Dlp0AtcJsJvGxvhXhGdej6NQRqrrzKPRatWPRDKWhLBJgXoz3LiltJU

EHTrust press conference on Monday, January 25, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CMHpb4D–k&feature=emb_logo

EHTrust OUR DAY IN COURT! EHT ET AL. V. FCC — ‘5G WIRELESS HARMS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FCC. January 25, 2021. https://ehtrust.org/5g-wireless-harms-lawsuit-against-the-fcc-eht-et-al-v-fcc/

Oral arguments by Attorney Scott McCollough representing Children’s Health Defense and Environmental Health Trust, Attorney Ashley Boizelle respresenting the Federal Communications Commission,  and the judges remarks on January 25, 2021 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXhnuAkLq4&feature=emb_logo

Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Uche and Naidenko. July 17, 2021.  Environmental Health 20. Article number 84(2021).https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Argued January 25, 2021 Decided August 13, 2021 No. 20-1025. Filed by Circuit Judge Wilkins.   ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. Federal Communications Commission. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/%24file/20-1025-1910111.pd