Despite mass community opposition, on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, the Ashland City Council passed a wireless facilities ordinance that would allow small cells and cell towers to be placed in the public right of way in front of homes, schools and businesses. But comments delivered by Environmental Health Trust about the FCC’s noncompliance with a court order sparked Ashland Mayor Tonya Graham to commit to a follow-up with the city’s congressional delegation to get answers.
Environmental Health Trust’s comment to the Ashland, Oregon City Council meeting was simple: the Federal Communications Commission has not responded to a remand in a 2021 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court ruled in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC that the FCC’s decision to maintain safety guidelines established in 1996 was arbitrary and capricious. Further, the court found that the FCC neglected to address record evidence of radiofrequency effects on children and the environment and failed to address long-term exposures despite the ubiquity of new wireless devices since the regulations were first established.
The court ordered the FCC to explain how its 1996 guidelines address new science it has received since the advent of its rules. To this date the FCC has not replied to the court.
“One of the things that I am particularly disturbed about is the FCC’s non-response to the court ruling,” Mayor Graham said during the meeting. ”In that ruling, they were specifically pointing out that they [the FCC] were not taking up the issue of non-cancerous impacts and impacts to the environment, and I will be reaching out to our congressional delegation to find out what they understand is behind the delay in the FCC responding to the courts.”
In its comment, EHT asked Ashland council members whether they have proof that wireless telecommunications facilities being deployed in their town meet current FCC exposure guidelines and whether the telecommunications providers and their facilities in Ashland are insured or insurable. EHT sought to table the ordinance until these issues are addressed.
By its own admission, the FCC acknowledges that no one is checking whether wireless facilities are within its own exposure guidelines.
“The FCC does not have the resources or the personnel to routinely monitor the exposure levels at all of the thousands of transmitters that are subject to FCC jurisdiction,” the agency stated.
Furthermore, for well over a decade, U.S. mobile operators have been unable to get insurance to cover liabilities related to damages from long-term exposure to radiofrequency emissions.
The truth is FCC is not a health and safety agency and has no capacity to review its own safety guidelines. Additionally, no government health and safety agencies have a mandate or funding to conduct hazard evaluations, review the ample science that has accumulated over the years, or determine a protective RF safety guideline.
Perhaps, Mayor Graham can get to the bottom of this.
