“Dan and Catherine Kleiber and their children have been injured by the outdated thermally-based radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) exposure guidelines adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) despite the fact that they have consistently avoided use of wireless technology.  The Kleibers have been harmed by involuntary ambient RF/MW exposures resulting from the FCC’s refusal to enact biologically-based population protective RF/MW radiation exposure safety standards for all RF/MW exposures.”

The Kleibers highlight comments made by injured individuals in Docket 13-84, showing that the FCC is violating human rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act by not enacting biologically-based population- and environmentally-protective safety standards for the radiation emitted by wireless technology.

The Kleibers point out that the far greater amount of energy used by wireless technology compared to wired communication to send the same amount of information itself required a NEPA evaluation.  “[T]he FCC is obligated to prepare an EIS due to both the differing environmental and public health impacts engendered by the choice between keeping RF/MW limits the same v.s. lowering them and the vastly disparate energy footprint of wired vs. wireless technologies and the implications for the future survival of the human race.”

The Kleibers take on the FCC’s reason for refusing to adopt biologically-based safety standards as follows, “In it’s recent decision, the FCC refused to adopt the BioInitiative Group’s recommended biologically-based population-protective standards stating “No device could reliably transmit any usable level of energy by today’s technological standards while meeting those limits.”(p.8 FCC Order 19-126)  This is akin to refusing to adopt biologically protective standards for lead in drinking water because it would prevent the use of lead service pipes.  As with lead pipes, there are viable alternatives.  Fiber optic internet is faster, more secure, more energy efficient, and has far greater capacity than wireless does.”

They cite scientific studies submitted in the docket that the FCC ignored, showing that radiation from wireless technology is hazardous to human health and the environment.

“Effects include: endocrine disruption, cancer, cardiac arrhythmia, and numerous other health impacts.”

“Furthermore, a number of studies were submitted that found detrimental effects on pollinators, wildlife and trees from permitted ambient RF/MW exposures.”

“Thus, the FCC decision not to adopt biologically-based population- and environmentally-protective safety standards is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law.”

The Kleibers introduce evidence strongly suggesting that the FCC may be causing a major public health disaster by promoting a technology that does not comply with biologically-based safety standards.

“Thus, the serious public health implications obligated the FCC to seek the CDC’s involvement in evaluating public health related information in the docket, including the possibility that RF/MW exposure is causally related to the increasing incidences of both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, inflammatory diseases, autism, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and chronic fatigue syndrome.”

They also point out that the FCC has failed to consider its own institutional knowledge about RF emitters when considering complaints by injured individuals.

“Injured individuals reported harm caused by RF/MW exposure which included harm from wireless devices and other electronic products which the FCC knows to also be RF/MW emitters since the FCC classifies them as Incidental and Unintentional emitters.  Thus, these accounts of harm show that not only are FCC RF/MW exposure guidelines for Intentional emitters inadequate and outdated, so are the exposure limits for Incidental and Unintentional radiators and electronic products that cause power quality problems which result in “dirty” electricity (yet another source of RF/MW exposure that the FCC is aware of).”

“FCC Inquiry and Order 19-126 negligently did not consider the biological activity of RF/MW exposures caused by passive intermodulation (“The Rusty-bolt Effect”) and RF/MW sparking (a phenomenon that the communication industry is broadly aware of dating back to before 1990).

Passive intermodulation and RF/MW sparking cause strong wide-spectrum RF/MW exposures as transmitted RF/MW radiation conducts across metal to metal junctions.”

Finally, the Kleibers also take on the FCC’s contention that it must “balance” protecting public health against promoting wireless technology.

“FCC actions are “not in accordance with law” when it “balances” its mission to promote wireless technology against its duty to protect public health and the environment.  The TCA, NEPA and the H.R. Report make it clear that the FCC is to protect public health in the event that the two missions conflict, as they do now.”

They conclude their Amicus Curiae Brief saying:

“We ask the Court to bar the FCC from adopting thermally-based guidelines developed by non-governmental industry-tied engineering organizations since they do not protect protect public health.  This has been the subject of several recent reports discussed in “Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest” which states:

“WHO and all nations should adopt the EUROPAEM [European Academy for Environmental Medicine]/Bioinitiative/IGNIR [International Guidelines on Non-Ionising Radiation] safety recommendations, supported by the majority of the scientific community, instead of the obsolete ICNIRP standards.

In conclusion, it is important that all experts evaluating scientific evidence and assessing health risks from RF radiation do not have COIs [conflicts of interest] or bias. Being a member of ICNIRP and being funded by the industry directly, or through an industry-funded foundation, constitute clear COIs.”

In light of the damage and suffering the outdated thermally-based FCC RF/MW guidelines are causing daily and the fact that neither the FDA nor EPA currently have the capacity to establish biologically-based population and environmentally protective limits immediately, we ask the Court to order immediate adoption by the FCC of the most recent BioInitiative Recommendations with periodic review and lowering to be performed by FDA and EPA in consultation with the CDC, once they develop capacity, as additional science warrants.”