Testimony by Theodora Scarato MSW regarding lack of federal accountability for cell tower radiation.
Proposed New Hampshire Bill HB1644 requires wireless telecommunication antennas be placed at least 1,640 feet from residentially zoned areas, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers, and schools. This bill also creates a registry for anyone experiencing symptoms of radiation exposure.
Testimony New Hampshire HB1644 by Theodora Scarato Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust January 18, 2022.
Dear Esteemed Lawmakers,
I am honored to be sharing this information with you today. I am Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust and this year we won a major lawsuit regarding the US federal safety limits for wireless radiation.
First let me be clear that this case was not about whether cell tower radiation does or does not cause harmful effects.
The lawsuit was about doing due diligence and about following proper procedure.
Here is why we sued. In 2019, the FCC made a decision that US federal safety limits did not need to be updated. They said it was just fine to keep the 1996 FCC safety limits in place despite literally thousands of pages of scientific evidence showing harmful effects.
We took legal action, because it was clear the FCC had ignored information submitted to their official record. The judges agreed and stated in their final ruling that, the FCC’s decision to keep the 1996 limits was “arbitrary and capricious”. The judges stated that the FCC did not provide evidence of properly examining scientific evidence such as the impacts of long-term exposure, the unique vulnerability of children and studies showing impacts to the brain and reproductive system.
The Court found the FCC dismissed the American Academy of Pediatrics and many other experts who recommended stronger regulations to ensure children and pregnant women were protected.
Although we might assume that health agencies like the FDA, EPA or CDC are ensuring safety- our lawsuit revealed they are 100% not.
To start, the EPA, CDC and National Cancer Institute have completed zero scientific research reviews of the current science.
Although statements on the FDAs website might seem like the agency is ensuring safety, it has, in fact, NOT shown any research review of the totality of the science. No evaluation of the science finding memory damage or impacts to fertility.
More importantly, the FDA has no authority when it comes to cell tower radiation. They only deal with cell phones.
In fact, our lawsuit revealed that there is no US health agency that is actively monitoring the science on cell tower radiation and ensuring that FCC limits for cell tower radiation are safe for the public.
Here is a story.
Last month California mother wrote the FCC asking if the cell tower that was built in front of her home was safe. The FCC lawyer told her that as long as FCC limits were met, the radiation was “deemed by the FDA” not to show adverse health effects in humans.”
So, the mother wrote the FDA asking for the science showing safety. An FDA lawyer wrote back and said:
“The FDA does not regulate cell towers or cell tower radiation. Therefore, FDA has no studies or information on cell towers to provide in response to your questions.”
If the FDA is not evaluating the science on cell tower radiation- then what health agency is?
Answer. No one.
Our lawsuit was about the reality that we have twenty-five-year-old safety limits for cell tower and wireless radiation,as well asa mounting body of science showing harm, yetno health agencies are ensuring our safety by staying up to date with the totality of the science.
What’s next? The Court ordered the FCC to re-examine their record and provide a reasoned explanation for the health implications of long-term exposure and all the issues they ignored.
The FCC has no date by which it must respond- but until it does, the 1996 cell tower radiation rules are in place. Thus, the US has antiquated rules for our 21st century technology. We just submitted a new filing requesting they look at the latest science published since we filed our court case. We may very likely need to take additional legal action to ensure they respond in a timely fashion.
Yes. This case is a procedural -with very important implications. Most people assume that our federal safety limits are based on top US experts always reviewing the latest research to ensure the public is protected. The Court ruling reveals this is a false assumption. The FCC’s wireless radiation limits cannot be understood as being based on a full review of the latest research.
Cell antennas are going up in neighborhoods in front of homes, yet U.S. rules on their emissions have not been properly reviewed for twenty-five years.
Sometimes the scandal in this country is not what is illegal, but what is legal.
Hundreds of scientists are clear that peer reviewed research indicates numerous harmful effects-even at very low and legally allowed levels.
- 255 scientists who have published in biolelectromantics signed the EMF Scientists Appeal.
- 419 scientists and doctors have signed the European Union Appeal 5G Appeal.
- Over 3,500 medical doctors signed onto a 2020 Consensus statement that wireless RF has been proven to damage biological systems at intensities below government limits (See signatures here, PDF of Consensus Statement).
- There have been appeals and position statements for decades. Read a list here.
This is a pivotal moment. Courage and political will are what is needed to protect the public and ensure safe and healthy communities.
Thank you very much,
Theodora Scarato MSW
Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust
Download testimony
Court Documents
- Final Court Decision 8/13/2021
- Link to 11,000 Pages of Evidence– – 447 exhibits in 27 Volumes-
- EHT Factsheet on EHT et al. v FCC
- 2021 November 30, 2021 Filing
Important Video Resources
- Video of Oral Arguments
- Transcript of Oral Argument
- EHT Video Analysis Oral Arguments With Clips
- EHT Press Conference after Historic Court Ruling
If you want to read about research on the low and mid band frequency radiation from 5G “small cells” and cell tower radiation. Take a look at the following peer reviewed published reviews.
- A review on real world exposure to 5G published in Toxicology Letters found that 5 G will have systemic effects as well as adverse effects to the skin and eyes (Kostoff et al., 2020).
- Two systematic reviews find harm to sperm (Sungjoon et al, 2021, Yu et al., 2021).
- A systematic review on the effects of RFR to male reproductive hormones found that wireless can decrease testosterone (Maluin et al, 2021).
- A review on the genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields found DNA strand breaks, micronucleus formation, and chromosomal structural changes (Lai 2021).
- A systematic review published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences found that neuronal ion channels are particularly affected (Bertagna et al 2021).
- A review in the International Journal of Oncology describes how EMFs lead to dysfunction of ion channels which lead to reactive oxygen species/free radical overproduction providing “ a complete picture” of how exposure may indeed lead to DNA damage and related pathologies, including cancer,” (Panagopoulos et al. 2021).
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk (Choi et al., 2020).
- The Switzerland Institute of the Environment expert published review found increased oxidative stress in the majority of animal studies and cell studies with exposures within regulatory limits (Schuermann et al., 2021).
- European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” released in July 2021 concluding that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns.
If you want to read some research about studies done on cell tower radiation, please consider these studies.
- A 2017 study evaluated effects in the blood of individuals living near mobile phone base stations and found higher exposures linked to changes in the blood that are considered biomarkers predictive of cancer.
- A 2018 study found school-aged adolescents exposed to higher levels of RFR exposure had delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in comparison to those exposed to lower RFR levels.
- A 2015 study of elementary students found higher Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in students exposed to higher levels of RFR.
- A 2011 review found a year of operation of a powerful cell base station resulted in a dramatic increase in cancer incidence among the population living nearby.
- Falcioni 2018 published in Environmental Research exposed rats to RF comparable to cell tower RF levels and found increased cancers.
- A 2020 study considering liability issues for wireless companies recommends that “although direct causation of negative human health effects from RFR from cellular phone base stations has not been finalized, there is already enough medical and scientific evidence to warrant long-term liability concerns for companies deploying cellular phone towers. In order to protect cell phone tower firms from the ramifications of the failed paths of other industries that have caused unintended human harm (e.g. tobacco)” the author recommends, “voluntarily restrictions can be made on the placement of cellular phone base stations within 500 m of schools and hospitals.”
- A 2021 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Found higher RFR cell tower radiation exposures linked to increased mortality for all cancers including breast, cervix, lung, and esophagus cancers.
