The court ruled that the decision by the FCC to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.” and held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.”
Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and the court found the FCC failed to address these issues:
Court Documents Final Court Decision 8/13/2021
On August 16, 2021, Environmental Health Trust held a Press Conference with Devra Davis PhD, MPH, EHT president; Dr. Hugh Taylor MD Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine and Yale-New Haven Hospital and president of American Society of Reproductive Medicine; Edward B. Myers, EHT attorney; Theodora Scarato MSW, EHT Executive Director and a petitioner in the case; Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology and former President of Microsoft Canada; Paul Ben Ishai PhD, professor of physics at Ariel University in Israel; Cindy Franklin, founder of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones and a petitioner in the case, and Elizabeth Barris, director of the Peoples Initiative Foundation and a petitioner in the case.
Human exposure guidelines for wireless radiation were last set in 1996.
The Court found that the FCC did not provide evidence of properly examining evidence such as:
- impacts of long-term wireless exposure
- impacts to children
- the testimony of persons injured by wireless radiation
- impacts to the developing brain
- impacts to the reproductive system
- impacts to wildlife and the environment.
The Court Order to the FCC
The FCC must now re-examine the submissions on their record. The Court specifically ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for these issues:
- the impacts of wireless radiation on children
- the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation
- the ubiquity of wireless devices and the technological developments since the FCC last updated its guidelines.
- the cell phone radiation emission test methods that use heat measurements and allow a space between the phone and body.
- the impacts of wireless radiation on the environment.
The Court also asked the FCC for a better explanation as to why the FCC did not want to change its cell phone radiation compliance methods (i.e., testing phones with heat-based measurements at a distance from the body rather than at body contact). In 1996, when FCC cell phone radiation test methods were set, people carried cell phones in holsters, therefore there was a separation distance between the phone and body. Today, people carry cell phones in tight pockets and bras, and rest laptops on their laps. The Court highlighted how the FCC refuses to change its outdated test procedures that allow cell phones and Wi-Fi devices to be tested with a separation distance, despite the fact that people use phones and Wi-Fi devices in direct contact to their body, and despite the fact that FCC’s limits can be exceeded by emitting devices that are in contact with the body. Most importantly, the FCC’s cell phone testing regime uses a heat based threshold which is entirely irrelevant because biological effects have been found at non-heating levels.
The transcript of the press conference can be found at Sign Up for EHT’s newsletter at https://ehtrust.org/publications/newsletters/
Like EHT on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EHTrust
Follow EHT on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ehtrust/
Learn and Support EHT on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/ehtrust
Subscribe to EHT’s YouTube to get more news and information on 5G and wireless.
