By Paul Ben Ishai

Today I am joyous!!  In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeals of Washington DC (one level below the Supreme Court) has ruled against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The plaintiffs were a coalition of groups advocating safer limits for the exposure to wireless radiation, chief among them the Environmental Health Trust and the Children Health Defense.

The petition stated that in establishing its 2020 regulations governing the exposure of the general public to radiation originating from cellphones, wireless and their attendant infrastructure, the FCC did employ an “arbitrary and capricious” process. Basically, they willfully ignored 1800 comments against the ruling and dismissed any science that contradicted them. They then reaffirmed the old 1996 standard and extended it to cover higher frequencies so that the implementation of 5G networks wouldn’t be damaged. The  Court of Appeals said clearly that that was wrong and demanded that the FCC provide their “reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation ….”  Effectively, the regulation is on hold and for the first time the FCC must answer to a court.  And you don’t arrogantly dismiss a court in the United States …

About Paul Ben Ishai

Paul Ben Ishai is an academic staff member of the Physics Department of Ariel University. He has authored 80 publications in various fields of physics and chemistry.  He specializes in the interaction of human skin and high frequency radiowaves and is a scientific advisor for Environmental Health Trust.

Read more of Dr. Ben Ishai’s blogs in The Times of Israel:

• The sorry story of cell phone radiation exposure — how did we get here? Part II
• The sorry story of cell phone radiation exposure — how did we get here? Part I
• The green dilemma of 5G densification
• Barrister battles over 5G — many a David and one Goliath
• The day Don Quixote found his mark
• The art of conspiracy and 5G
• The 5G morass – tales and tattles or reasons for concern?