MORE NEWS
Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC
Our legal appeal (case number 20-1025, in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) charges that the FCC violated numerous laws and glossed over substantial evidence when it decided on December 4, 2019 that FCC radiofrequency-exposure limits and regulations — established in 1996 — still provide adequate protection and could remain unchanged.
A joint opening brief was submitted on July 29, 2020, by the Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense, and numerous petitioners and now we are preparing to submit our final joint response to the FCC.
Four Amicus Briefs
Submissions in support of the legal appeal against the FCC:
The FCC Has Violated Numerous Laws
Natural Resources Defense Council
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an environmental organization that has been on the forefront of the environmental movement since the 1970s working to ensure the rights of all people to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities.
Previously, NRDC and several Native American tribes worked with attorney Ed Myers, who is representing EHT on this case. They successfully challenged a 2018 FCC order halting the elimination of environmental and historic review for certain cell towers and wireless infrastructure.
The elected officials signing onto the amicus brief include mayors and councilmembers from Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, California and Hawaii.
Attorney Joe Sandri
Joe Sandri, President of the National Spectrum Management Association is a wireless company executive and regulatory attorney who worked for three decades in the industry including in the licensing and deployment of wireless networks and the drafting of corporate human RF exposure compliance policies for microwave and millimeter wave band system deployments.
Dr. Birnbaum is recently retired as Director of the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The NTP just completed their large scale study on animals exposed to cell phone radiation. Sandri’s Brief includes a statement by Dr. Birnbaum.
The Building Biology Institute
The Building Biology Institute (BBI) is a non-profit organization which educates and certifies environmental consultants, electromagnetic radiation specialists, and healthy building design consultants with proven methods to secure homes, schools, and workplaces from toxic indoor compounds and electromagnetic pollution. Their classes and resources are regarded worldwide.
The Building Biology Institute shares the reality for many people injured by wireless radiation in their Amicus Brief. “Building Biologists often care for clients who are ill and desperately struggling simply to survive in their own homes from RFR exposure. Clients include children and parents, professional people and elderly citizens, those with preexisting serious disabling conditions, and others who have recently become Electro-Hyper- Sensitive (EHS).”
Dan and Catherine Kleiber
Dan and Catherine Kleiber shares how they and their children have been injured by the outdated FCC exposure guidelines. She repeatedly tried to get accomodations and was repeatedly denied.
The Kleibers highlight comments made by injured individuals in the FCC 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.
Every Amicus Brief is A Must Read
The Federal Communications Commission has failed to protect the public from radiofrequency emissions.
So-called 5G – the fifth generation of wireless service technology – dramatically increases human exposure to RF radiation.
The Building Biology Institute’s certified practitioners operate at ground zero. They are alleviating the suffering of thousands of people in the United States. For these individuals and their families, the implementation of mitigative measures recommended by BBI certified practitioners offers a last hope…
Public Officials Signing the NRDC Amicus Brief
- Teresa Barrett, Mayor of the City of Petaluma, Petaluma, California
- Tawn Beliger, Northfield Township Trustee, Northfield, Michigan
- Larry Bragman, Marin Municipal Water District, Marin County, California Cheryl Davila, Member, City Council of Berkeley, California
- Cindy Dyballa, City Councilmember, City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Michael Eger, District One Councilor, West Springfield, Massachusetts
- Renee Goddard, Mayor, Town of Fairfax, California
- Paul Hebert, Barnstable Town Councilor, Barnstable, Massachusetts
- Kacy Kostiuk, City Councilmember, City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Peter Kovar, City Councilmember, City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Caitlin Quinn, Trustee, Petaluma City School Board, Petaluma, California
- Terry J. Seamens, City Councilmember, City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Kathrin Sears, Marin County Supervisor, District 3, Marin County, California
- Jarrett Smith, City Councilmember, City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Kate Stewart, Mayor, City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Kelly Takaya King, Council Member, County of Maui, Hawaii
- Rebecca Villegas, County of Hawaii – Council District 7, Hawaii County, Hawaii
- Tina Wildberger, Hawaii State Representative, House District 11, South Maui: Kihei, Wailea, Makena, Hawaii
Arguments From the NRDC Brief
- The FCC’s December 4, 2019 order compromises interests of amici in three critical ways:
(1) The FCC failed to complete an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA before terminating its inquiry into the adequacy of its radiofrequency (RF) standards.
(2) The FCC’s inadequate health standards excuse wireless service providers from conducting environmental review even though these services may expose humans and the environment in which they live to harmful radiation.
(3)The FCC’s order renders any environment review that is done inadequate because it is based on inadequate health standards. Rather than conduct new analysis of the potential environmental harm its actions may cause, the FCC will simply point to its decision in its December 4 order that its RF standards are adequate to satisfy NEPA. This might be fine if the FCC supported its decision with sufficient evidence. As explained by Petitioners, the Commission did not.”“Previous generations of macro towers could be built several miles apart, but the 5G millimeter wave spectrum simply cannot propagate long distances over a few thousand feet — let alone a few hundred. As a result, the FCC anticipates ‘hundreds of thousands of wireless facilities’ will be deployed in the next few years, ‘equal to or more than the number providers have deployed in total over the last few decades. As the 5G buildout continues, Americans are forced to ‘live with involuntary 24/7 radiation.'”
- “In addition to its impact on humans, radiofrequency radiation poses harmful effects to flora and fauna. In a review of 113 studies from peer-reviewed publications, seventy percent of the studies concluded that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields had a significant effect on birds, insects and plants. In a 2013 literature review, the authors concluded that even for short exposure periods (<15 mins to a few hours), non-thermal effects were seen that can persist for long periods.”
- “Scientific research also indicates that electromagnetic fields can disrupt navigation abilities of migratory birds.”
- “Numerous scientific studies were available to the FCC if it had taken its environmental review responsibilities seriously. Instead, the FCC stuck its head in the sand and did not even mention many of these studies of potential environmental harm in its 2019 order.”
- “NEPA requires the commission to analyze the environmental impacts — including those of radiofrequency radiation — of its authorization of wireless service providers. The Telecommunications Act goes further and imposes an affirmative duty on the FCC to protect the public from environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation.”
- “Despite numerous scientific studies of potential harm from exposure below the limits set by the FCC in 1996, the commission chose not to change (them). The FCC misunderstands its responsibilities under NEPA and the TCA. As a result, the record lacks the support for the FCC’s decision to continue to rely upon its 1996 limits for RF exposure.”
- “Although the FCC has aggressively limited state and local authority to protect the public from the environmental effects of RF radiation, it has failed to collect and review the information it needs to support its own RF radiation standards, which were last updated in 1996.“
- “In addition to barring state and local regulation of the environmental effects of RF radiation, Congress limited EPA oversight by eliminating EPA’s funding for activities related to RF radiation. At the time, EPA was poised to issue new standards for RF radiation. It had briefed both the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration regarding its work to develop RF exposure guidelines.
- “EPA informed the FCC that it would have final guidelines by early 1996 based on technical input from the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) in which the FCC participated. EPA never completed this work. By eliminating EPA’s funding for it, Congress gave the FCC the authority to control limits on RF radiation from wireless services.’
- “The FCC’s December 4, 2019, action ignores this new technology and its impacts. Such failure to ‘consider an important aspect of the problem’ is exactly the kind of arbitrary and capricious decision-making the Administrative Procedure Act prohibits.”
- “Moreover, the commission offered no meaningful response to the numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies received as part of the inquiry that raised concerns about the environmental effects from exposure to radiation below the FCC’s limits. The FCC’s inadequate RF standards preclude adequate environmental review.”
Amicus of Joe Sandri with Declaration of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former Head of the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences
Joe Sandri, president of the National Spectrum Management Association, is a wireless company executive and regulatory attorney who worked for three decades in the industry, including in the licensing and deployment of wireless networks and the drafting of corporate human RF exposure compliance policies for microwave and millimeter wave band system deployments.
Key Quotes
“The FCC did not properly review the extensive record in the human RF exposure proceeding. Because the FCC is not primarily a health care or an environmental protection agency it has a special duty to review the work of experts from those fields and also a duty to make written requests to the various expert agencies, including and not limited to Health and Human Services (HHS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). It does not appear that the FCC provided evidence that it met minimal requirements to review the record in this proceeding, let alone that it even wrote numerous agencies of subject matter expertise, seeking their input.”
Dr. Birnbaum
Dr. Birnbaum recently retired from the NTP, which ran studies that tested nonthermal levels of RFR for toxicologic potential, including carcinogenic activity and relied on controlled chronic exposures to levels of RFR that do not significantly increase temperature.The study found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage.
In her statement, Birnbaum cited Dr. Ronald Melnick, who preceded her at NTP. Melnick studied toxicology for 28 years at the NIEHS and was the lead designer of the NTP study on cell phone radiation. He has published ample research on this issue, as recently as 2019.
The NTP study has been criticized and dismissed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Melnick’s published analysis concluded that ICNIRP “misrepresented” the NTP study and should not have discounted the carcinogenic effects found in experimental animals exposed to RF-EMF. Dr. Birnbaum documents this in her statement.
“Overall, the NTP findings demonstrate the potential for RFR to cause cancer in humans.”
“The independent peer review of the entire proceedings carried out by toxicologists, pathologists, and statisticians independent of the NTP staff conducted March 26-28, 2018, concluded that there was ‘clear evidence of cancer,’ with respect to the schwannomas of the heart in male rats, and ‘some evidence of cancer’ with respect to the gliomas in the male rats. In addition,that review also documented DNA damage in multiple organs along with preneoplastic lesions in cardiac and brain tissue.”
“The utility of the NTP investigations has been documented in several publications.”
Download Amicus of Attorney Joe Sandri
The Building Biology Institute Amicus
Key Quotes
“The Building Biology Institute’s certified practitioners operate at ground zero. They are alleviating the suffering of thousands of people in the United States.”
“By refusing to assess health risks and establish health regulations based on considerable scientific peer reviewed studies, the FCC is jeopardizing the lives of millions of people; for the most vulnerable people, who are chronically exposed toRFR contamination, the FCC’s policy may constitute a death sentence.”
“The crux of the matter is that the FCC’s maximum human exposure limit is based on the false assumption that non-thermal radiation is not and cannot be harmful.”
“Building Biologists often care for clients who are ill and desperately struggling simply to survive in their own homes from RFR exposure. Clients include children and parents, professional people and elderly citizens, those with preexisting serious disabling conditions, and others who have recently become Electro-Hyper-Sensitive (EHS). Most of these victims are people of modest financial means, who do not have an easy opportunity to escape exposure. None have consented to be irradiated. More specifically, they are being told the radiating devices are ‘safe.'”
“More and more people and children will certainly develop sensitivities in the future. This is because bringing 4G/5G antennas to residential streets will increase power density by a factor of 100 to 400 times current levels inside people’s homes.”
“There is also a deep question of health injustice. Protection of homes and workplaces from RFR contamination is very expensive for ordinary working people. But for economically disadvantaged citizens, minorities, disabled persons, and other vulnerable populations, the services of a Building Biologist are not an option. There is simply nowhere for them to go to escape RFR exposure. The present FCC thermal regulation, in addition to lacking any sound scientific foundation, as pointed out by Petitioners, is perpetrating a continuing, ever-expanding, and cruel injustice.”
The Amicus Also Presents Excerpts from People Harmed by RFR
“The cases reported in the addendum document how ordinary vulnerable citizens, their families, and properties are being seriously harmed by RFR contamination caused largely by commercial companies, delivered without and against occupants’ consent, with no tender of fair compensation.”
- “The buzzing in my head was so maddening at times I thought this was an extreme form of torture.”
- “My eight-year-old daughter had started to vomit uncontrollably at night, sometimes for hours.”
- “The imposition of RFR contamination costs without fair compensation on people and businesses affects the entire population, but falls most cruelly and tragically on poor people, minorities, and the elderly, who have no medical, legal, or economic recourse at all. They are trapped.”
- “The present FCC thermal regulation today exposes a large percentage of the population to extremely high levels of RFR contamination, which a substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific studies, cited by Petitioners EHT and CHD in their joint brief, confirms is very hazardous to humans and other living things. The FCC order appears to disregard the scientific record entirely.”
Dan and Catherine Kleiber Amicus
Key Quotes
“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 a far greater amount of energy is used by wireless technology compared to wired communication to send the same amount of information, and that for that reason, the FCC is required to conduct 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 vs. lowering them and the vastly disparate energy footprint of wired vs. wireless technologies and the implications for the future survival of the human race.”
Learn More About the FCC Lawsuit
