- Landmark Ruling: FCC Loses Case Over Wireless Radiation Limits
- Court Orders FCC to Reassess Wireless Radiation Limits for Health and Safety
- Petitioners Win Lawsuit Against FCC Over Ignoring Health Risks of Wireless Radiation
- FCC’s Failure to Protect Public Health: Court Rules Against Wireless Radiation Limits
On August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and other petitioners in their case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), known as EHT et al. v. FCC. The court found that the FCC did not adequately consider the potential harm of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless devices and infrastructure when it decided not to update its existing RF exposure limits in 2019.
The court ordered the FCC to provide a “reasoned explanation” for its decision not to review the RF exposure limits and to address the petitioners’ arguments regarding the scientific evidence of harm caused by RF radiation. The FCC must also reevaluate its determination that its existing RF exposure limits adequately protect human health and the environment. The court’s decision has been hailed as a victory for public health and for the growing body of scientific evidence that links RF radiation to a range of health effects.
The Case Against the FCC and the Harmful Effects of Wireless Radiofrequency Radiation
EHT et al. v. the FCC is a case filed by the Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato, MSW, challenging the FCC’s decision not to update the 1996 wireless radiation limits despite the existence of thousands of pages of research and expert testimony showing harmful effects of wireless radiofrequency radiation on humans, wildlife, and the environment. The case was consolidated with a separate case filed by Children’s Health Defense and several individuals, represented by attorney Scott McCollough and Robert Kennedy Jr.
The case’s central issue is the FCC’s decision not to update the wireless radiation limits with a full health and safety review, which petitioners argue ignored scientific evidence showing harm from radiofrequency radiation. The case highlights the need for a rigorous health and safety review of the wireless radiation limits and the potential risks to public health and the environment.
The Environmental Health Trust’s Scientific Work on Wireless Radiation and Health
The Environmental Health Trust is a scientific nonprofit that has been working on wireless radiation and health for over a decade. Its scientists have published numerous studies on the harmful health effects of electromagnetic radiation and organized national and international scientific conferences on the issue. The co-founders of EHT, Devra Davis, and Dr. Ronald Herberman, have extensive scientific backgrounds and have worked on numerous environmental exposures.
Dr. Davis, a founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, has been a vocal advocate for the need for rigorous scientific research on the harmful effects of wireless radiation. Dr. Herberman, who founded the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, was one of the first to issue recommendations for reducing cell phone radiation exposure.
EHT’s work highlights the importance of understanding the potential risks of wireless radiation and the need for more research in this area.
The Importance of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes successfully sued the FCC over its failure to consider the environmental impacts of its wireless radiation limits. In this earlier case, the court upheld the relevance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions. The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the EHT et al. v. FCC case, highlighting the importance of NEPA in ensuring that the potential environmental impacts of the wireless radiation limits are fully considered.
The Need for More Transparent and Rigorous Safety Standards
The case against the FCC and the work of EHT highlight the need for more transparent and rigorous safety standards for wireless radiation. Currently, the FCC’s wireless radiation limits are based on outdated research, and the agency has been criticized for its close ties to the telecommunications industry.
As the use of wireless technology continues to grow, it is critical that safety standards keep pace with the latest research and technology. This includes a rigorous health and safety review of the wireless radiation limits and the development of more transparent safety standards that take into account the potential risks to public health and the environment. The case against the FCC and the work of EHT underscore the importance of prioritizing public health and safety in the development and implementation of wireless technology.
The recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the case of EHT et al. v. the FCC is a significant victory for advocates of public health and safety. The court found that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to respond to comments on environmental harm in their decision to maintain their 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation. The FCC’s decision was found to be “arbitrary and capricious,” as they failed to provide a reasoned explanation for their view that the exposure limits would adequately protect against the harmful effects of radio frequency (RF) radiation.
The court’s decision is a damning indictment of the FCC’s failure to regulate the wireless industry adequately. The FCC has long been accused of being corrupted by the industries it is supposed to regulate, and this recent ruling only confirms these suspicions. The FCC ignored thousands of comments and scientific studies submitted by scientists, medical organizations, and doctors, as well as hundreds of reports from people who have become ill from electromagnetic radiation. The court found that the FCC failed to respond to “established evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the current limits can cause adverse health effects unrelated to cancer.”
The court further found that the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists, and doctors who urged them to adjust the limits. The FCC failed to address the impacts of long-term wireless exposure, impacts to children, the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, impacts to wildlife and the environment, and impacts to the developing brain and reproduction. The FCC’s failure to address these critical issues is a significant concern, as it shows that the FCC is not interested in protecting public health and safety but rather in protecting the interests of the wireless industry.
The court’s ruling is a historic win for environmental health groups and petitioners who have been fighting for years to have the FCC regulate the wireless industry adequately. The court ordered the commission to “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, 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 address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”
The court’s decision is a significant step in protecting public health and safety. However, it is essential to remember that the fight is far from over. The telecom industry is still pushing for the rollout of 5G wireless technology, which poses significant risks to public health and safety. The FCC must take this opportunity to re-evaluate its exposure limits and update them to reflect the latest scientific evidence. The FCC must also address the impacts of wireless radiation on the environment, wildlife, and the developing brain and reproduction.
In conclusion, the recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a significant victory for advocates of public health and safety. The FCC’s failure to regulate the wireless industry adequately has put the public at risk for far too long. The court’s ruling shows that the FCC cannot continue to ignore the evidence of the harm caused by wireless radiation. The FCC must take this opportunity to re-evaluate its exposure limits and update them to reflect the latest scientific evidence. It is time for the FCC to prioritize public health and safety over the interests of the wireless industry.
What was the main argument of the petitioners in EHT et al. v. FCC case?
The 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.
Who filed the case and who represented them?
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) filed the case in the Court of Appeals with Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato. They were represented by attorney Edward B. Myers. EHT’s case was then consolidated with a separate case filed by Children’s Health Defense and others, who were represented by attorney Scott McCollough and Robert Kennedy Jr.
What is Environmental Health Trust (EHT)?
EHT is a scientific nonprofit that 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.
Who represented the FCC in the case?
The FCC was represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis, and Richard Kiser Welch.
What was the court order in this case?
The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cellphones and other wireless devices comply with federal limits on how much radiation they can emit. The FCC was also ordered to address gaps in the record and to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to decline to require further inquiry into the impacts of radiofrequency radiation on human health and the environment.
Breaking news: FCC loses case over wireless radiation limits. Court orders reassessment for health and safety. #wirelessradiation #FCC
Huge victory for public health! Court rules against FCC for ignoring health risks of wireless radiation. #healthandsafety #FCC
Petitioners win lawsuit against FCC for negligence on harmful effects of wireless radiation. #environmentalhealth #FCC
FCC’s failure to protect public health exposed by court ruling. #healthrisks #wirelessradiation
Landmark ruling demands FCC to reassess wireless radiation limits. Time for action on health and safety. #actionneeded #FCC
