We are leading the way toward safe technology! In court hearings last month, the judges asked excellent questions of the FCC indicating that they read the briefs and read the scientific and policy evidence EHT and experts worldwide had submitted to the FCC over the last decade. EHT’s research and submissions are now used as key evidence in this historic lawsuit which calls on the FCC to reconsider, revise, and update its 25-year old outdated exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cellphones, cell towers, Wi-Fi networks, smart meters, and other wireless communication networks.

Two days after the Jan 25, 2021 court oral argument in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Washington DC we submitted our final documents to the court. During the hearing the judges asked for more information within 24 hours and after that EHT and petitioner responded. Note these submissions are simply factual responses to the judges questions regarding an expert committee of the FDA and the Federal Interagency Workgroup on Radiofrequency.

- - FCC Submission to the Court
  - EHT and petitioners response to the FCC

During the EMF Medical Conference at EHTs booth, EHT Executive Director Theodora Scarato presented the latest. Scarato plays key excerpts of the judges questioning the FCC at the oral hearing and provides expert commentary as well as background on the latest submissions just filed.

“I’m just going to be very upfront with why I am inclined to rule against you,” stated Judge Robert L. Wilkins to FCC counsel Ashley S. Boizelle questioning how the FCC determined safety evaluations had been completed.

“And so I’m just trying to understand how the FDA coming back and talking about cellphones that are in a holster—where nobody keeps them anymore—or in a purse when they’re not being used is at all… and looking only at cancer is at all relevant to an Inquiry, again, into the effect of this radiation frequency from multiple devices that are used in entirely different ways now, in entirely different volume, and throughout the population, including children who live on iPads.” – Judge Patricia Ann Millet

MAJOR PRESS COVERAGE FOLLOWED THE COURT HEARING

Washington DC Top News: (WTOP) “Federal appeals court hears case on FCC’s 5G safety standards“
Law 360: “DC Circ. Picks Apart FCC Over 5G Wireless Safety Review“
Broadcasting and Cable: “Court Hears Challenge to FCC’s 5G Radiofrequency Guidelines”
Bloomberg Law: U.S. — FCC Faces Skeptical Appeals Judges in Radiation Emissions Case

“A federal appeals panel in Washington voiced skepticism that the Federal Communications Commission had adequately considered dangerous health effects when it established guidelines for radiation emission from cell towers and wireless devices…”

— Bloomberg Law

“Dr. Devra Davis, an epidemiologist with the trust, said the standards that were set for testing 5G were set 24 years ago. “They’re out of date,” Davis said, “and they cannot adequately reflect a technology that did not exist and was not even on the drawing boards when those test systems were developed.”

— WTOP News Kate Ryan .

“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress and published critical research on why children are more vulnerable,” said Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President and founder of Environmental Health Trust. “The FCC has ignored ourextensive submissions to the FCC over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead, asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s healthy future.”

EXPERTS FILED AMICUS BRIEFS

The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the Petitioners’ case on the need for environmental review signed onto by Mayors and Councilmembers from Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, California and Hawaii. Telecom attorney Joe Sandri filed an Amicus Brief quoting Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and former Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), stating, “Overall, the NTP findings demonstrate the potential for RFR to cause cancer in humans.” The Building Biology Institute and Kleiber family filed Briefs on injuries sustained from exposures allowed by FCC exposure guidelines.”

EHT ET AL. V. FCC KEY RESOURCES

Key Documents

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 thousands of pages of evidence used in the case such as as studies and court cases referenced.

Amicus Briefs

Amicus of NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
Amicus of Attorney Joe Sandriincluding 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

Docket Links

About the Case

EHT et al. v. the FCC seeks to have the Court order the FCC to remand, vacate and update its 25-year-old exposure guidelines for radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, 5G and other wireless communication devices.

After Environmental Health Trust’s case was consolidated in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals with Children’s Health Defense, the evidentiary briefs were filed jointly with the Children’s Health Defense, as well as Consumers for Safe Cell Phones and numerous other petitioners including Elizabeth Barris, Theodora Scarato MSW, Michelle Hertz, Petra Broken, Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran and Paul Stanley M.Ed.

“It was quite impressive to note how thoroughly the judges had read our brief in this complicated case. They asked pointed questions about what we have documented in our case to be the failure of the FCC to produce a record of reasoned decision making. For example the judges zeroed in on the fact that there is a US inter-agency radio frequency working group with which there is no record of consultation on the record. Further they questioned the FCC regarding the fact that it’s own technical advisory group on electronic products had failed to weigh in on cell phones altogether. The justices questioned how the agency could ignore the undeniable fact that the types of devices, wireless uses and users of wireless devices are radically different today than they were when the standards were first set, “ stated Devra Davis PhD MPH president of Environmental Health Trust.

The Petitioners contend the FCC ignored the extensive evidence submitted to the agency showing that non-thermal levels of pulsed and modulated RFR emitted by wireless technology are harmful to humans, wildlife and the environment, and its order failed to provide a record of a reasoned decision making. Therefore, the Petitioners claim the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and its decision is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based. In addition, the Petitioners argue that the FCC violated NEPA because the agency did not consider the environmental impacts of its decision. FCC also violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) in failing to consider the impact of its decision on public health and safety.