Environmental Health Trust et al. v. Federal Communications Commission 

Press Conference August 16, 2021 

The August 13, 2021 landmark ruling in the case Environmental Health Trust et al. v. the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the FCC’s  2019 decision not to update it’s 1996 exposure limits failed to address impacts of long term wireless exposure, failed to address unique impacts to children, failed to address the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, failed to address impacts to wildlife and the environment, and failed to address impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.  

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; president of American Society of  Reproductive Medicine
• Edward B. Myers, EHT attorney
• Theodora Scarato, MSW, EHT Executive Director
• Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology and former President of Microsoft Canada
• Paul Ben Ishai, PhD, Professor Physics at Ariel University

Transcript 

Dr. Devra Davis:  Greetings from the Environmental Health Trust. We’re delighted to talk with you today about a historic moment in our lawsuit against the FCC. We are talking with you today about something which will have a long term impact on all of our lives. And we are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued their ruling in the case of the environmental health trust at all versus the FCC. The court concluded that the FCC had really failed to meet their statutory requirement to take a serious look at the extensive scientific evidence that EHT and other experts groups had submitted to the agency since 2013. Human exposure guidelines were less set in1996. At that time, gas costs $1.23 a gallon. This was a quarter of a century ago, when Shaquille O’Neal and the late Kobe Bryant were just young basketball players. 

The world is very different. Times have changed, but the FCC has not. And in 2019, the FCC insisted that they could rely on the same standards of 1996 for evaluating wireless devices without showing any consideration at all, for the thousands of pages of scientific evidence that Environmental Health Trust and many other expert groups submitted as part of this record. The court specifically noted that there was a huge gap and the agency had never shown that they had looked at all seriously at the record that had been submitted. And they specifically said that the agency had violated their legal responsibilities under the Administrative Procedures Act, effectively ignoring the massive body of science relevant to evaluating harmful effects of exposure to 5G cell towers, cell phones, and wireless technologies. Ask yourself this, would you like to drive in a car that had 25 year old safety standards or fly a plane with 25-year-old standards? Effectively, the FCC ignored thousands of pages of submissions. We will hear today in this press conference from Professor Hugh Taylor, MD PhD, who is chair of the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Yale University and President of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, who has written more than 500 articles in his field of specialty. We will hear from Paul Ben Isahi, who directs the laboratory that is devoted to studying millimeter wave technologies. We will hear from the attorney for Environmental Health Trust, in this case, Edward B. Myers. The case was argued by Scott McCullough from Children’s Health Defense, as we were required by the courts to work together with them. And that is part of the success of this case, is that collaboration. 

Robert Berg is an attorney who has been working on the issue of wireless radiation for quite a long time. And finally, our executive director, Theodora Scarato will introduce as well the comments of other petitioners in this case, Cindy Franklin and Elizabeth Barris. We are delighted that the court has found that no agency is above law. The FCC failed in its duty to establish a reasoned record of decision making, Environmental Health Trust and our experts scientists from France and Turkey and Israel and Brazil, and other nations have provided extensive evidence showing the current levels of cellphone radiation are not protective of human health and the environment. As I pointed out in my book Disconnect, which was first published a decade ago in 2010, the FCC has clearly indicated that wireless radiation right now, they argue, cannot have an effect on children. They don’t need to change the standards, while the American Academy of Pediatrics has joined with others in saying the standards need to be changed. The GAO has repeatedly issued reports and requests in response to requests from Congress in the 1990s in 2001, and more recently in 2012. And each of those reports says the same thing. We need more research. But in 2012, the report said that the agency needed to specifically examine its standards with respect to children and whether or not there was growing evidence of the effects on reproduction. In 2013, the FCC opened another notice of inquiry, they’ve been asking for information for a long time. Thousands of pages were submitted. In fact, Environmental Health Trust conducted seminars for the FCC, at which the FCC participated in 2009. In 2012, in 2014, FCC staff attended those seminars. We brought scientists into the FCC and provided several expert briefings, submitting extensive evidence to think about this. When the standards were last set, the average call was thought to take six minutes was made by a large guy with a big head. Phones in 1996 cost thousands of dollars back then, calls were not very frequent. Even worse, it was assumed in 1996, that all people carried phones in holsters on their hips. And because of that the standard for testing is now no longer relevant to what happens today, when millions of people store phones in tight pants pockets, or sometimes even in their bras. This standard, when phones could be tested an inch off the body no longer applies in the era of 5G, when we will have millions of new antennas in neighborhoods, some of which can be just feet from bedroom windows, and billions of new wireless devices, part of the Internet of things.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has submitted a number of letters to the FCC, those were ignored, our evidence was ignored. And then just before Christmas of 2019, without providing any proof of deliberation, or any conclusory statements indicating they have even looked at the evidence submitted, the FCC suddenly closed the notice of inquiry that had been open since 2013, concluding that its 1996 human exposure limits that were 25 years old did not need to be updated. That is why we took this historic legal action. Children’s Health Defense case was joined with us by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are pleased to say that on August 13, 2021, the court issued a decision recognizing the abject failure of the Federal Communications Commission to consider effects on human health and the environment. Specifically, the court found that the FCC had failed to address impacts on long-term wireless exposure on children, on people injured by wireless radiation, on wildlife in the environment, and on the developing brain and reproduction. And I quote from the order, “the FCC order fails to acknowledge evidence of negative health effects caused by exposure to RF radiation at levels below the limits set by the Commission’s 1996 guidelines, including evidence of cancer, radiation sickness, an adverse effects on sleep, memory, learning, perception, motor abilities, prenatal and reproductive health and children’s health.” I urge you to read the order which is available on the FCC website and on ours. The court remanded the issue back to the FCC for reasoned decision making. This is an agency that has operated above the law for decades, with a revolving door of leaders that come from and go back to the telecom industry they’re supposed to regulate. Harvard University in 2014 published a report concluding that the FCC was a captured agency, unable to exercise appropriate independent authority, specifically saying that the wireless industry was using tactics of big tobacco, attacking scientists and funding sources. As I wrote about in my book Disconnect, the wireless industry has wargamed the science for several decades. It ignored for example, the evidence from the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, urging it to consider effects on wildlife and the environment. It ignored extensive evidence showing that radio frequency radiation can affect pregnancy outcomes, such as the research we will hear about from Professor Hugh Taylor of Yale University that found damaged memory and hyperactivity in animals exposed prenatally.

Astonishingly, the FCC also ignored and dismissed the findings of the National Toxicology Program. What makes this astonishing is that the FDA had ordered this study from the National Toxicology Program, had reviewed the study design throughout the history of the study, had approved and evaluated the data, and then when the results came out showing clear evidence of cancer, DNA damage, heart damage in animals, the FDA decided that the study they had ordered and designed was somehow not relevant. This means that all of the animal testing that we do to develop drugs and vaccines, as well as other things, would be invalid if you said they’re not relevant to humans. I wonder whether the FDA was thinking that animals should be making phone calls to make a relevant study here. The fact of the matter is the protocol used by the NTP in their 30 million study was the best that could be done and is relevant to humans, as many other scientists have written, as you can find on our website as a published in the peer reviewed literature. We now join with experts from the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations, and call on the new FCC in the new administration, to bring independent experts scientists without corporate ties to inform regulation and see that it rests on the latest scientific information. We look forward to working with the new FCC that can finally take a look at all the information that the old captured FCC ignored. And now I’m pleased to introduce Professor Hugh Taylor from Yale University with whom I was able to speak briefly earlier today. Professor Taylor has published more than 500 peer reviewed publications, and is Professor of Medicine and president of the Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Dr. Hugh Taylor: So I’m Hugh Taylor. I’m the chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Yale School of Medicine. I’m also serving as president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine this year,

Dr. Devra Davis: Would you take a moment and tell us the study that you published in scientific reports with prenatal exposure to animals?

Dr. Hugh Taylor:  So, again, being an obstetrician gynecologist, I’m particularly interested in the effects on development, that’s a very vulnerable time when organ systems are just forming. That’s probably the time when we’re most susceptible to lots of different insults and damage. So we wanted to know if radiation from a cell phone could be harmful to a developing fetus to the baby while still in the mother’s womb. So we exposed mice during pregnancy to cell phones, and as a control group, we used a cell phone that was not connected, so not broadcasting, not synced, sending out a signal to the tower, so not emitting that radiation. So we have two groups, those that were exposed, cell phone, on the top of the Mouse Cage versus control group with an inactive non broadcasting cell phone. And then we waited till the pups were born, they were no longer exposed to a cell phone after they’re born. So this only looked at the effects of exposure during pregnancy while they were in the womb while they were still developing. And we found that these mice after they were grownups still had residual damage from that cell phone exposure, that they were more hyperactive, their memory was poor. Yet, they didn’t seem anxious about that. So they were again, bouncing off the cage, without a care in the world. Much like you might think of as ADHD are some conditions that affect people. I’m not saying that mice had that condition, because we don’t diagnose that medical condition in a mouse. But I think that’s what it most closely modeled. So I’m really worried about the effect of cell phone exposure, radiation exposure to the fetus. Again, key developmental points are often our most vulnerable time. And the damage done to the fetus is carried with that baby after birth and into adulthood. This is a very important time for us to be vigilant about.

Dr. Davis: What is so fascinating about your work, is that you demonstrated behavioral effects of cellphone radiation. We’ve talked a little bit about the work of other researchers that have shown effects on the hippocampus, so that there’s a physiological foundation for what you’ve established, because what they have shown is that prenatally exposed animals then subsequently develop literally smaller hippocampus and more capacity than for damage later on. Have you been able to do any follow up studies to these? 

Dr. Taylor: Well, it’s nice to see that a lot of the work that we’ve done has been confirmed in other ways, looking at other areas of the brain or other other types of outcomes. So it’s nice to see the consensus there. And it’s nice to see this confirmed in humans in the epidemiologic literature where although you don’t intentionally expose humans do something harmful there plenty of now, data that correlate high cell phone use with these types of conditions like ADHD in the children, I use the precautionary principle if something is implicated as harmful, we need to study it more in the meantime, protect those who are risk, protect the vulnerable from these exposures. You know, I think we can’t wait for this to work through the courts. And through rethinking these proper federal regulatory processes, I think we need to act now. And if I were a, someone who’s considering pregnancy, or someone who is pregnant or mother of a young child, I think it’s just important to move that cell phone away from you and not be exposed to that radiation any more than possible, you know, not that we would give up using a cell phone entirely. But certainly don’t leave it on constantly on your side or near your abdomen when you’re pregnant. 

Dr. Davis: And now it is my honor and distinct privilege. To introduce my colleague, Frank Clegg. Frank has had a distinguished career as a telecommunications expert himself. He worked and became the president of Microsoft, Canada, and worked throughout a number of positions in that important company, and now is the founder of Canadians for Safer Technology, and also chairman of the business advisory group of Environmental Health Trust. So it is my pleasure to introduce Frank Clegg, who will speak with us now about what this means for Canada and the world, and what his thoughts are about this important court decision.

Frank Clegg: Well, thank you, Devra, and I thank you for the invitation to join this very distinguished panel. Given the rapid increase in the use of wireless devices, and their continuous expansion and capability, it’s difficult for government regulators to keep up with the technology, let alone regulate it. I believe the time has come when we should follow the examples in the pharmaceutical, chemical, and transportation industries, where the companies who benefit from bringing their products to market are responsible to prove their products are safe. I believe the technology and telecommunications industry’s free ride must end, where all they have to do is say that they meet federal guidelines. In fact, studies show that two thirds of consumers hold their cell phones against their bodies, which in fact, break federal guidelines. Now there’s going to be an outpouring from my industry about how this cannot be done, how expensive it will be, and how unrealistic, then based on experience, industry will get to work, and I believe will provide wireless products that are both safe and effective. And a lot of cases, even cheaper. I’ve been in the technology industry for over 40 years as Dr. Davis outlined,  in my most recent position, I retired as president of Microsoft Canada, and I’ve seen their tremendous benefits technology can provide. I’ve also seen the potential harm of technology is not implemented correctly. And I believe that our current implementation and use of wireless devices is not safe. That’s why I co-founded the Canadians for Safe Technology in 2012,and I joined Environmental Health Trust as the chairman of their business advisory group. Now this landmark decision has implications for the entire world that relies on the FCC as a beacon of advice. The ruling reveals that  current outdated FCC limits do not rest on thorough review of all the relevant scientific evidence. This decision clearly shows the assumptions that all parents make — their devices reflect the best and the latest science are actually not warranted. Most of the public, including me before 2010 and 11, assumes that the safety limits for these billions of wireless devices are based on a robust review of all relevant research. Clearly, in this decision, the court states at the FCC failed to show that it had taken seriously a wide range of evidence, including damage to sperm, impacts on the brain and stress to wildlife and our environment. Sadly, the FCC, which sets up policies that affect the entire planet, chose to ignore this evidence and did not even provide record reviewing published studies, such as the one carried out by the Yale chairman of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor Taylor.  Here Dr. Taylor just indicated, not only is there extensive animal research showing negative impacts on pregnancy, and the behavior of exposed offspring, but there’s growing evidence that such effects are found in children, when and where, where they’ve been able to look for them. This failure to use the latest science and setting standards in this case is not only in the US, but unfortunately in Canada as well. Canada has safety limits from Health Canada Safety Code that rests on outdated assumptions regarding adult exposures and do not need to take into account the millions of young children using phones and tablets. Similar to the FCC, Health Canada safety limits cling to the 100-year-old assumption that tissue must be heated to be harmed. This has been disproven by hundreds of high quality peer reviewed published studies. Now 5G is being rolled out. Contrary to the assertion that 5G will be harmless because the skin provides a protective barrier, the fact is that 5G will use a wide range of frequencies. This includes the lower frequencies used by 2G and 3G found to cause cancer by the aforementioned national toxicology program. These these frequencies can also penetrate deeply into the brain.

In addition, 5G can also use higher frequency millimeter waves which are absorbed in the skin. Some of the frequencies used by 5G are used by the US and Israeli military for crowd control, their active denial systems. Furthermore, the explosion of smart devices also requires the more dense 4G LTE networks, resulting in ever increasing public exposure to a panoply of RF R frequencies. Some models that we’ve seen show a small cell antenna every 100 yards in a dense population area. When Health Canada did their last review in 2015, although Dr. Davis and other experts from around the world participated, we found that over 100 studies were ignored that showed harm well below Canada, North America’s current guidelines. We have a suspend 5G Canada appeal that has been signed by over 20,000 Canadians that asked precisely what the court is ordering. Take a good look at the science. This is about our children’s future. Do not be lulled into believing that 25-year-old standards can protect the youngest and most vulnerable. They simply cannot. Thank you.

Dr. Devra Davis: Thank you very much, Mr. Clegg. And now, I’m delighted to introduce my colleague, Paul Ben-Ishai, who is an expert in bio electromagnetics. And who’s the director of the Laboratory of Dielectric and Terahertz Science. Professor Ben-Ishai has submitted testimony to the FCC, which is among the testimony that was ignored, and that the court specifically referenced in its ruling, saying that there were 1000s of statements that had not been taken into account by the agency. Dr. Ben-Ishai please.

Professor Paul Ben Ishai: Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. And I would just like to make one small correction, the 1996 standards actually have their roots way, way back into 1957, with a work by the tri Services Commission. If you’d like to read about that, you can find it on the blog that I do publish and is also on the EHT website. So the standards are extremely, extremely old and completely non relevant to the modern age of the cell phone itself. And cell phones are with us to stay, we have to admit that they’ve changed our society, they’ve changed the way we act and interact with each other. But it doesn’t mean that we must be a slave to that particular technology. So therefore, this ruling is highly important, highly important, not just in the United States, but also in the world itself. Because what will happen, and the United States will then trickle down to the rest of the world as we follow the lead given by the United States and in its exposure regulations. I’m very happy to hear that, in fact, the court has taken this into consideration and has demanded that the FCC, take for probably the first time, a proper look at what the science really does say because I’d like to reiterate what Frank has just said. The science is very, very clear. There are definite biological effects at that intensity far far lower than those allowed by the current regulations. And they do have negative effects on us and should be taken into consideration. I also fully agree with Frank, take four engineers, stick them in a closed room and they will come up with a solution which is biologically safe. And they should be allowed to do so. However, only if regulation will force them to do it will that happen? I would like to point out one point that I am unhappy and sad that the US Court did not agree with a position about the NTP study. And in fact, they missed it, dismissed it, I think they are mistaken here and they are mistaken because they looked at nomenclature. They looked at the words 3G, 4G, that’s not 5G, but they didn’t look at what the mechanics of transmissions really are. When you look at the mechanics of the transmissions, how signals are in fact sent from base stations to cell phones and back, you find out that the mechanics are very, very similar for the 3G for the 4G and for the 5G, they’re all using the basic idea of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. This means that whatever is going to cause cancer in mice, and with 3G and 4G signals, or 2G signals, is also going to do the same with 5G signals. And as we well know, what causes cancer in mice, as we’ve seen in terms of chemicals, as we’ve seen in terms of other toxicology programs, eventually will cause cancer in us. So I think, I hope, that the US Court will be able to reconsider that particular part of their rulings, because I believe they are in fact mistaken there. You need an expert witness, and they did not use expert witness in this particular case. As I say, it is about time that the FCC be held accountable. And I think it’s about time that it looked at the real real science. Thank you.

Dr. Davis: Now, I’m really delighted to share with you remarks from attorney Edward B. Myers, Mr. Myers, who has represented government, trade associations and private clients and regulatory matters, over 40 years he was the lead attorney for Environmental Health Trust on this case, and in 2018 working with the Natural Resources Defense Council, they successfully challenged the FCC with respect to the need for environmental review of 5G cell towers and transmitters. In this case, Mr. Myers represented us and the other plaintiffs, Cindy Franklin and Elizabeth Barris, to appeal the FCC decision that they issued, which was not to revise the safety standards. Mr. Myers will speak to us this morning from a recorded interview explaining the nuts of the case, and the finding that the FCC failed to comply with legal requirements to review submitted evidence.

Edward B. Myers: This case involves an FCC order that was issued in 2019, in which the FCC terminated a proceeding that had begun several years earlier actually in 2013, in which the FCC considered whether to reexamine and start a new rulemaking to update its safety regulations for the limits on radio frequency radiation from cell phones and cell phone facilities. The Commission I should say, terminated that proceeding without taking any action, thereby perpetuating the 1996 limits on radio frequency radiation notwithstanding over 1000 documents in the record, challenging the safety and environmental impact of those regulations. In considering our appeal, the court granted our petition for review, because contrary to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination to terminate the proceeding below. The court found among other things that the FCC had improperly relied on conclusory statements from a sister agency, the Food and Drug Administration or FDA, even though there was no indication that the FDA itself had looked at the evidence of significant harm from radio frequency radiation. The court decided to send the case back to the FCC, with a direction to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. In particular, the court directed the FCC to explain why it decided to retain its cell phone testing procedures to address the impacts of radio frequency radiation on children, and the health implications of long term exposure to radio frequency radiation, and how the regulations apply today, given the ubiquity of wireless devices, relative to when the 1996 regulations were put into place. What is a remand, a remand simply means that the court has decided to send the case back to the FCC, so that the FCC can re-examine what it has done,nd try again to come up with an order based on the evidence in the record, it will have to provide a reasonable explanation for whatever decisions it makes. Now how it orchestrates that, it remains to be seen, that the agency, the FCC, has a lot of flexibility in how it’s going to proceed. It may establish a brand new docket, it may reopen the old docket. In either case, it will, in all likelihood, be required to issue a public notice that will be published in the Federal Register, alerting the public to the fact that there’s a new opportunity to present evidence. It might be argued that doesn’t need to add new evidence to the record, that there’s sufficient evidence already. But given the time that has passed since the record was compiled, beginning in 2013. And the fact that the Biden administration is, is now in power, whereas it was not in power. When the decision was issued, It would not surprise me if the FCC reopens the record, in order to give the public a chance to submit updated evidence. I’m not insisting that that necessarily will happen, but I think it’s very likely. So interested persons should keep an eye on the Federal Register for notice from the FCC, indicating exactly how it intends to proceed and whether an opportunity to present new evidence is going to be provided and what the deadline will be for the submission of the new evidence. The court clearly felt that the FCC’s claim that the margin of safety ensured that there be no problem with exposure to radiofrequency radiation was not sufficient, was not reasonable, really, has nothing to do with showing that the existing limits are reasonable. And more is required of the agency than just that kind of argument. So to the extent the agency makes that kind of argument, in some pending matter, I think there is a basis for challenging the agency.

Theodora Scarato: I see, I know that gave a lot of deference to the FDA, but even with all of that, they still concluded it was arbitrary and capricious for the non cancer effects, which that the FCC never even talked about. I mean, they didn’t even discuss then, even list them or address why much less birds, bees, trees, was not, was nothing.

Mr. Myers:  Well, yeah, on that latter point. I think it is interesting that the fact that the FCC did not even address the environmental issues, means that on the remand, the FCC is going to have to address the environmental issue. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that the FCC has to conduct an environmental impact statement, or an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. So it’ll be interesting to see just to what extent the FCC addresses environmental issues, and how and how it addresses environmental issues. A full environmental impact statement is a big undertaking. And I suspect the agency will feel it is under no obligation to do that, given the court’s decision, but it is obliged to address environmental effects. So it’ll be interesting to see how they do that. And whether it’s sufficient to meet the courts standards.

Ms. Scarato: Yeah, we did a FOIA federal we have freedom of information request to the FCC that found there was discussion about an environmental review. But there was never, we were actually not given the documents, but rather documents were redacted related to the issue of environmental review. Should there be an environmental review for 5G, I know that there was so much research on the record on trees, plants, impacts to insects, impacts to bees, so I found it shocking when I first learned about this, that actually, the limits were never set to protect animals or wildlife. And yet, with all the 5G cell towers, if you have several in a neighborhood, dozens, you’re going to have the birds, bees and trees to be closer than people. And yet, we don’t even have limits that even consider how this would affect them. And we know that the levels can be hundreds of times more near the antennas. It’s not any more than the FCC limits, noncompliant.

Mr. Myers: It’s clear that on the remand they are going to have to look at the environmental effects. I don’t wanna say environmental impacts, because that sounds too much like NEPA, but it may come down to the same thing.

Ms. Scarato: Well, thank you very much for joining us. And for your incredible work on this case. I cannot thank you enough for your work. 

Mr. Myers: You’re welcome. It was my pleasure.

Dr. Davis: Now, I’d like to introduce a man who has extensive experience on this issue. And we’re delighted to be able to have him with us today. Attorney Robert Berg has taken on some pretty big and powerful forces on this issue. And I will let me say that, and we will answer all the questions that we can on our website. And we will address many of them after we finish these presentations this morning. But I want to encourage you to please write to info@ehtrust.org. if you have additional materials after the zoom webinar is over, or additional questions you want to raise for us and please do look for all of the interviews with Professor Hugh Taylor with Mr. Ed Myers and others that we have taped here today so that you have the opportunity to look at the record, we do not know we have a new FCC, and they have an opportunity for a fresh start. And we encourage them to take it. We think that congressional hearings, of course, are long overdue, but in the meantime, as Professor Taylor said, the public should not wait for the regulatory agencies to act. They are way behind the times, and people need to take sensible steps to protect their children, follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, follow the advice of Professor Taylor and look on our website at Ehtrust.org for practical information about what you can do now to protect yourselves and your families. And Mr. Berg, look forward to your comments. Thank you.

Attorney Robert Berg: Good afternoon. I’m Robert Berg. I’m a lawyer in New York. I’ve been practicing law for 38 years, and I specialize in class action litigation for the past few years thanks to the influence of my daughter Zoey Berg, and her work with Americans for Responsible Technology, I’ve devoted a tremendous amount of my time in my legal practice to helping individuals and groups fight the deployment of wireless facilities in their communities. That’s how I met the incomparable and inspirational team of Devra and Theodora. I’m honored that Devra and Theodora have asked me to speak today about the EHT tremendous landmark victory with the DC Circuit ruling in the EHT v. FCC. Now I had nothing to do with this appeal. So my comments are as an admiring outsider. This case truly has pitted the David’s against the Goliath’s, it’s exceptionally gratifying that the second most important court in the country has bench slapped the Federal Communications Commission hard and exposed what we’ve always known that the Emperor the FCC, especially led by former chairman Ajit Pai has no clothes. The language that the majority uses is remarkably hard hitting. It’s very unusual for a court of appeals when dealing with the federal agencies to be so aggressive in its language, saying an agency acted so arbitrarily and capriciously, did not use any reasoning. I mean, it’s really unheard of. It’s tremendously gratifying to read that language. Now we had a sense of that during the oral argument in January, when the panel was questioning the lawyers, but to see it in writing is just terrific. And I’m really so happy that these organizations fought so hard. It’s so hard to get the groups to actually appeal this. I mean, and because you’re going against the best funded companies — the telecoms — in the world, the government, you know, with the FCC has been such a captured industry for so long. And to actually get a victory like this is stunning. It really is a landmark event. Now, the FCC, its bar in this case, was very, very low to win. It just had to show that it engaged in some reasonable decision making, and it was unable to win on the areas non cancer related. Now, let me talk briefly about one area that’s been disappointing.

 It’s not really surprising given the legal standard, the court was required to apply, and that’s the portion of the opinion regarding wireless radiation and cancer. Now, the petitioners argued that the FCC failed to respond to record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause cancer. So the petitioners pointed to the IARC classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Enter the 2013 monograph where the IARC found limited evidence that RF radiation causes cancer in humans and animals, to the 2018 National Toxicology  Program study and to the Ramazzini Institute study, that both found increases in incidence and cancers in rats and mice exposed to RF radiation. That to us is very compelling evidence, and it’s tremendously compelling. But the court found that the Commission’s failure to mention the IARC monograph did not epitomize reasoned decision making. So that was good. But then the court held that the Commission’s order provided a reasoned response to the NPA NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies. The court said that the Commission explained that the NTP study can’t be extrapolated to humans, because the rats and mice received RF radiation across their whole bodies, the exposure levels were higher than what people receive under the current rules, and the duration of exposure was longer than what people received. The studies were based on 2G and 3G phones, not Wi-Fi and 5G and the order cites a critical response to those studies from ICNIRP. So all the court said was, they provided reasons they engaged in a process of reasoned decision making. We don’t agree with that we think they’re wrong. But they engaged in a reasonably rational process. The bottom line is that the Court of Appeals is not adopting those findings as correct by the FCC. It’s just saying they engaged in a reasonable process, and under the law, as long as they do so the court reviewing an agency’s determination has to give a lot of deference to the agency, and so they passed that very, very low hurdle. So while that’s disappointing, it is to be expected under the law, the court makes clear in its opinion, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and the environmental effects of RF radiation. So that leaves the door open in the future, certainly with respect to RF, radiation and cancer to challenge in the emissions levels again, we think obviously, the evidence is compelling, and gets more and more compelling every day as new studies flow in that cancer is caused by wireless radiation. So I’m very hopeful. We’ll have a new commissioner on the FCC, we have an ability to see congressional hearings is a whole new playing field here. And this decision really opens the door and allows us when we go to court around the country to say, look, the FCC has these standards, but they’re not gold standards. They’re actually terrible standards. The Court of Appeals, the second most important, important courtroom in the country has really said these are really they acted very badly. These are old standards, they have to be looked at again. And it really caused them to question, now the standard stay in effect until the FCC can, you know, concludes the three man proceedings. But they’re certainly not inviolate as they were before this decision. So again, I want to congratulate EHT for its efforts. They’re amazing. The work they do is amazing. And I’m really happy to be able to speak here today. Thank you.

Dr. Davis:  And we’re delighted to have you because you’ve had the experience of settling what was one of the largest consumer class action suits in New Jersey history against AT&T for consumer fraud. And many people have asked the question, which we cannot answer here today. As to whether these standards at this time could be considered fraud in and of themselves. That is a question that we will leave to you, Mr. Berg and other attorneys to consider as we move ahead on this issue.

Ms. Scarato: I wanted to start by sharing short statements by Liz Barris and Cindy Franklin, who are also petitioners in the case and represented by Edward.

Liz Barris: Hi, my name is Liz Barris, and I’m the director of the PeoplesInitiative.org and a plaintiff against the or petitioner against the FCC in this lawsuit. Because of the FCC’s blatant corruption in the safety standards, tens of thousands of people in the United States have been made sick or dead from their exposure to wireless radiation. And the worst thing about it is, they have no idea they’re going to their grave, without even knowing what’s killing them. And the reason for this is because they’re being lied to by the wireless industry and the FCC. I myself have had to move four times due to not being able to get away from this radiation. I’ve had to quit my job that I loved and I made a great income on, my symptoms are loss of energy, extreme loss of energy, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, kidney, liver, adrenal problems, you name it. I’ve had, I don’t even want to go into all of my illnesses from this radiation. So this is a historic win against a very powerful industry. And let’s make no mistake about it. The FCC, you know, our lawsuit was against the FCC. The FCC is controlled by the wireless industry. Okay, so our win was against the FCC. Yes, but also against the wireless industry, and may we have many, many more to come. Thank you for watching.

Cindy Franklin: Hi, I’m Cindy Franklin. I am so honored to have been able to join Environmental Health Trust in this legal challenge against the FCC on behalf of my nonprofit consumers for safe cell phones. This saga for me began over 10 years ago. But this particular, the actions that led up to this lawsuit for me started 10 years ago when I flew out to DC and testified along with other wireless health and safety advocates, before the Government Accountability Office, and they were putting together an investigative report at that time, 10 years ago, on whether the FCC exposure guidelines needed to be updated. Because many people were saying that they’re 10 years old, and they’re potentially obsolete. The report came out in 2012. It was a scathing review of the lack of regulatory oversight at the FCC, in particular, about not having re evaluated their exposure guidelines, and also specifically was mentioned the inadequacy of their testing protocols to test the safety of cell phones. So I think the most important ruling, the most important issue that I thought was addressed in this ruling was, basically, the ruling completely pulls the rug out from under the fundamental basis upon which the FCC exposure guidelines are founded. And that is an obsolete physics principle, that only ionizing radiation like X-rays can harm people, and that microwave radiation is nonionizing and so the only harm is from the heating of tissues. So, this ruling actually called that into question. So the very basis of the guidelines which, in essence, those who understand what the science, the independent science has been showing, thousands of studies, over many years, over decades, even our government had done studies in the past showing biological harm at levels hundreds and thousands of times below the current FCC guidelines that only take heating of tissue into account. So what this means is that industry can no longer hide behind these, these guidelines because they’re basically meaningless and so on. Horizon AT&T, Apple, Samsung, the CTIA when they make confident statements, assuring the public assuring everyone that the exposure that we get from the wireless transmitters that are expanding into our communities closer to our homes and schools, when they claim that it’s all safe because it falls within FCC, quote, safety exposure guidelines, it’s all a lie. It’s now exposed as a big Lie. And when they hire scientists to show up at meetings and lecture the public about how this is non ionizing radiation, and it’s been shown that it  can’t harm people, it’s fine. And when they lie and and say that the transmitters that are being installed on utility poles and lampposts and communities are safe because they’re under FCC guidelines. Again, this has been exposed now as a lie, and the light is shone on that.

Ms. Scarato:  So let’s take some questions such as can be or will be, you know, will the FCC appeal?

Dr. Davis:  Mr. Berg, I’d like you to speculate on that question. And then I have another question for you, a legal question from State Representative David Michelle. He asks, as a state representative can this ruling for the FCC be used as a strong argument to force the Connecticut citing council to go back to the drawing board for their notices of possibility of hearing in the case of homeowners who receive a package notifying them that a small cell will be installed next to their home? These notices stipulate that the hearing process is solely about structural issues, and the homeowners cannot use public health or environmental concerns based on the 1996 telecom act. In your view. Mr. Berg, does this ruling by the court allow the local authorities more influence and more control over citing?

Mr. Berg: I just worked on a case helping out some attorneys in New Haven dealing with a homeowner and a Verizon installation outside her house. And I must say, we lost that  front of PURA. And I’m hoping they’re going to appeal it to the Superior Court in Connecticut. It was, they completely ignored the expert testimony that we provided. I’m not impressed without PURA handles these things are totally overwhelmed. So this decision itself, I don’t know what impact will have the guidelines still remain In effect of moment, the preemption issue still remains valid under the telecom act. I mean, that hasn’t changed. And that’s still a difficult thing to deal with. With respect to health and environmental concerns regarding the citing of facility. We have other arguments we use there aesthetics neighborhood aesthetics character, if there’s a zoning plan in town, you can use that and say it should be in an industrial zone, not in a residential neighborhood, PURA they have a right of way proceeding and PURA controls, it’s you know, with the right of way. So I don’t think this decision by itself really affects that, I’d like to speak to the representative. If he reaches out to me, with respect to the FCC appealing this decision. I tend to doubt it, the Supreme Court in its current makeup is hostile to the idea of deference to agency decision making. So you have a number of members of the court that would love to cut back on the deference given to agencies. So I think they’d be loath to go up to the court and have agency deference narrowed tremendously by this court. So I don’t think the FCC is going to take a shot at that personally for information.

Dr. Davis:  PURA is the public utilities regulatory authority in Connecticut, and like a lot of these local authorities are overwhelmed and does not have any expertise in public health at all. So that’s part of the problem is that people are speaking different languages. And for example, the FCC itself does not employ a full time health expert. They have almost no experts at all in the fields that are relevant here. So what we have to recognize is that there is a problem in the way the regulatory system has been set up right now. The FDA as well lacks real expertise in this issue, and that is why we are calling for the new FCC to bring in independent experts, but also to consult more broadly. The court found that there was no evidence that the FCC had actually consulted with relevant agencies. There’s an interagency task force on radio frequency radiation, which I briefed with scientists, we had standing room only briefings at the FCC. And yet they were not consulted when it came to to this decision. So there’s a lot of room for improvement here on the part of the federal government. But I want to echo what Professor Hugh Taylor said, is that you should not wait for the federal government to issue its ruling here. 25 year old safety standards are obviously not relevant to setting approaches and guidelines for technologies that Professor Ben Ishai indicated, are using systems that didn’t even exist 25 years ago. So in answer to several other questions, we will make the recording of this press conference available online as soon as possible afterwards, certainly, you’re free to share it with any of the relevant legislators who are looking for information. There’s a small group of attorney’s that’s working on this issue, led by Julian Gresser, I also want to point out that when Cindy Franklin came to Washington, to talk to the GAO, she came with Ellie Marks, Ellen Marks has been fearless fighting on this issue on behalf of her husband, Alan Marks, who is now struggling with brain cancer. And we all owe them a great debt of gratitude for their leadership on this issue. She played an amazingly important role with a Berkeley, California right to know about cell phone radiation. And ultimately, this decision is about the right to know and about the requirement of a federal agency to use the latest information and show that it is given a full and complete hearing. There are questions about from people who are unable to go into public buildings. And I wonder whether, again, we see the opportunity for action to be taken on this.. Dr. Ben Ishai, could you talk briefly about the requirements in Israel in terms of placement of antennas, on schools, and close to children, and what you see as the best hope for reducing exposures to our children?

Professor Ben Isahi: Well, thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I don’t have very good news from Israel now. Because in our latest budget law, which is now before the Knesset building, the same communication industry is now trying to push through legislation to allow them to establish antennas with no building permission in municipalities. Up until today, basically, the entire placement of antennas have been controlled by building regulations. And so the municipality was able to keep our cell phone antennas at least 100 meters away from school buildings. And many municipalities had in fact stopped having Wi Fi being allowed in schools, or even demanding that children would have cell phones turned off when in school. This is set to change if we are unable to challenge this new warning from our communications ministry. Once again, the very same thing that has happened in the states with the with the FCC, is happening over here to where the powerful industry lobby is trying to push forward easy use if you’d like legislation to let them simply place small cell whenever they would particularly care to. But as I said, up until now, at least 100 meters from schools and not on school buildings. Any antenna placed on a building could not be placed on a on a residential building only on a commercial building, and then must be at least four meters above the roof of the building itself. And if I get technical and talk about how the transmission would have to be, there are limits placed on what will be the angles of transmission that could come to people directly under would not be adversely affected. I sincerely hope that we’ll also manage in our public battle over here to prevent the cellphone industry from being able to place small cells, willy nilly wherever they particularly care to.

Dr. Davis: Well, I want to point out that the current law in Israel does say you cannot have antennas on these schools and what you’re telling us that there’s a very active effort now. And we hope quite frankly, that Israel will pay attention to this recent decision from the court, which has remember what we are talking about here, The US Court of Appeals right below the Supreme Court has looked carefully at all the evidence submitted, including your excellent submission Professor Be Isahi along with 1000s of others and it has said to the FCC, you have got to take this evidence into account. Hopefully this will be a wake up call not just in the United States, but in Israel and elsewhere. The FCC cannot get away with just more words on this, they actually have to establish a reasoned record of rational decision making. That could mean bringing in contractors to evaluate the evidence that could mean opening up a new record. The question is, will this have an impact on the billion dollar 5G juggernaut? We hope so. We hope so. And it remains to be seen. But literally, again, Dr. Ben Isahi, please comment on the relationship between 5G and what we found with the studies of 2g and 3G and why those studies on 2G and 3G are in fact relevant to 5G.

Professor Ben Ishai: Yep, definitely. When you look at the actual mechanics of how transmission happens, how do we actually transmit data from the base station to the cell phone, there are a number of ways in which it can be done using time division using orthogonal frequency modulation, ie, cutting up the frequency band into small segments and transmitting in small segments to be able to carry much much information on the 2G, 3G, and even after the 5G are still using the base same basic formats. All throughout the world. The main change has been Of course, in the number of frequency bands that have been used. And particularly in 5G, the reason to move to a higher frequency band is to simply pack in much more information. But the signal itself is still actually quite quite similar. So in terms of a biological consequence, for biology, it still looks very much the same. So in bioelectromagnetics terms, there’s no great difference in terms of a signal which is a 2G modulated signal or 3G modulating signal or 5G modulating signal. Therefore, as a bio electromagnetic magnetization if I see and affected using a 2G modulating signal, I will expect the same sort of effects to be happening on the 5G modulated signal. Now once again, the statement by industry that 5G is relatively harmless because of the wavelength, the higher wavelength will only penetrate into the skin and no deeper, is also throwing mud in our eyes because — I’m biologically speaking — the skin is the biggest organ in the entire body. It makes no particular sense to consider that if I deposit electromagnetic energy into the skin that’s going to be good or better than if it goes deeper into the body. You will still cause the same overall problems than you would if you were penetrating deeper into the body. Another important point, as I said, the skin is the biggest organ in our body. A lot of the symptoms that we see with electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very, very similar to sort of an allergy in some ways. And as you know, the skin can be very, very susceptible to allergic reactions. So there is no justification at all, in industry terms, to state that, okay, higher frequencies are going to be better for us because the only penetrate slightly into the skin, no justification at all, we will still get heightened sickness. That’s one point there is another point I would like to point out beyond the fact that all these signals look very, very similar to us. When we start to investigate 5G signals that the future 5G signals and we look at the densification of antenna that will be used, it is very clear for us that the energy requirements in terms of electricity, in terms of the burning of fossil fuels are going to rise dramatically. The last estimation that we had is that a 5G network will increase the national energy bill by 10%. This means that the 5G far from being part of the Green Revolution, helping us go further into an environmentally more safe world will actually do exactly the opposite. It is probably one of the most energy intensive ways which we could be transmitting information, WiFi, whatever you want to put it is actually very, very un-environmentally friendly. Thank you.

Dr. Davis: Thank you very much for that. I want to just address two simple questions, one of which is what is the infrastructure bill mean, for all of this given what we’ve just seen here, and we have written in our letter to President Biden, urging him that yes, if you want to bridge the digital divide, by all means you need money for infrastructure for broadband. It should be wired, broadband, not wireless, and it is absolutely false to say that 5G is going to bridge the digital divide. 5G is a marketing plan to make people buy 5G phones 5G routers, 5G monitors 5G devices, because 5G only works if you’ve got new equipment, which is you many of you know is very, very costly in the United States. So we know as Mr. Dr. Ben Isahi just said, we know that the 5G antennas use between three to 10 times more energy than the 4G antennas. And it has been called an energy vampire. And I’ve written about this, in op-eds. And we have on our website, we have information available on the different patterns. And we know that in China, where they had installed 5G, they started turning it off at night, people were not using it. I want to address Another question we got technically about the mice study that Dr. Taylor presented, the cell phones were right at the water bottle of the cage. So they were not very close to the animals, that’s really important to understand now, and these mice have thin skin and it takes only three weeks for them to go from pregnancy to birth. But the exposure was not that great. That is why he says keep your phone away when you’re pregnant, away from the abdomen away from the body. There’s massive implications of this finding as well, for the recent auction of 5G spectrum. We think that 5G needs to be rethought and we need what is called Safe G. This is something that Kate Kheel, and others working on 5G have been advocating for some time, we need technology to be as safe as possible. And as we heard from Mr. Clegg, he believes this industry is capable of doing it, but we have to require it and we means we the people, not just the Congress, not just the FCC. That is why please join us at Environmental Health Trust, support what we’re trying to do here, join our Patreon. Help us to reach more people with this message. Those of you in Canada, please join with Mr. Clegg and his organization of Canadians for Safe Technology. And make sure that you ally yourself with those who are seeking to promote more safety. I’ll now turn to Mrs. Scarato, who has a few more comments, and we’ll address a few questions. But we will post all of this online, it will be up as soon as we can get it downloaded, which is going to take some time. But I think it will be later today. 

Ms. Scarato: Thank you. And I know that people might be hopping off I put in the chat that you can hop off, we will have this available to the EHT press conference, which is starting so there are a few things that we’re addressing the questions I wanted to go to. One is about the you know, when companies say it’s safe or when it’s in the lease, and in the video with Ed Myers we also address that. And just for clarity, the 1996 limits are the limits now that certainly stand the 25 year old limits. So it certainly can’t be said that there has been a review in 2019. That has, that is that has legs, because what has been shown by this court, you know, as Robert Berg talked about, and Edward Myers talked about is that that is now in question because they weren’t able to substantiate it with with with an explanation that made sense. So they’re asking for that. But I wanted to point out something important related to 5G and the question about that and other lawsuits, starting with 5G that the FCC actually opened up in the same 2019 decision in which they said there’s no problem. We’re keeping our 1996 limits. They also decided to make new exposure limits for large swatches of higher frequencies and lower frequencies. That’s in 19226 the docket 19226 And they based their rationale on that, by their opinion, which was the one that we filed on that there was no problem with the current limits which are based on thermal heating and all the work that has been done decades ago. So now that has a question and I would add in perhaps legal experts can respond that that docket 19226 remains open. Environmental Health Trust has been continuing to submit regularly the new evidence into that docket because it says that, hey, we can take these higher frequencies for 5G lower frequencies for wireless power transfer and other applications and make new limits and we don’t have to worry about it because of our determination that there’s no problem with 1996 limits. We also put in the latest two part it’s actually a three part but only two have been published so far. The review on environmental effects by Dr. Henry Lai, Blake Levitt and Albert Manville former US Fish and Wildlife Service lead biologist on the issue of cell tower radiation. I also wanted to mention from the questions here that yes, there could be implications which need to be addressed, as Ed Myers told me on the interview that we will have online related to the Berkeley cell phone right to know law, as well as the lawsuit related to the class action suit on people who bought cell phones, but were not informed that they shouldn’t be close to the body. Because at that time, the FCC sent in data filing, saying, look, we know that these levels are safe, even if we exceed those levels. There’s this large safety margin. It now the court has stated that that wasn’t substantiated in their 2019 determination. So I guess that is for the lawyers to determine. But it does lend important new information. The one other thing is that related to cell towers, you know, and are they safe, the court really found are stated in their ruling that the FCC failed to address the impacts of long term exposure. And that is just they also pointed out they didn’t address as was stated at the beginning of this call, long term exposure was not the FCC didn’t explain that impacts to children, the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation ignored. And there was a complete failure to address the impacts to wildlife in the environment. And as well when it comes to human health impacts the developing brain and reproduction, all of which was on the record. So please stay updated with us so we can continue to get this information on the record, to hold them accountable and to ensure all federal officials are aware of what’s going on, and that they can get answers to questions like How did this happen? When the EPA wrote me and this is now on the record, which I’ve placed on the record and which was in the Amicus brief by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The EPA stated in a letter to me their last review on this was in 1984, and that they were not aware of any agency that had done the reviews, they certainly hadn’t on impacts to a brain like research showing memory damage,  certainly not birds, bees and trees. So all of that is new information. And I hope that the FCC will open a docket or utilize the current document and be current docket, which has now has additional information, and really look at a full review of the science.

Dr. Davis: And I heartily agree, let me just add that we are looking forward again to the new administration doing the right thing, because they have an opportunity to do it. I want to announce that Professor Taylor and I will be convening a small continuing medical education program at Yale University, where we will review the latest science, which was not looked at by the FCC on exactly what Mrs. Scarato was just talking about the impact on the brain, the impact on reproduction, the impact on sperm as well. And we have many, many questions that we cannot answer here. We’ll throw many of them to Mr. Berg, to answer with you directly. What grounds for appeal, this creates a leave to the lawyers to figure it all out. But the fact of the matter is, as both Mr. Myers and Mr. Berg indicated, the current standards remain, but the FCC must revisit them and must show a reasoned record of rational decision making with respect to the evidence that was submitted. And they failed to do that, especially with respect to wildlife. And those of you who are interested in that issue should see the excellent article just published by Blake Levitt, Albert Manville and Henry Lai. So now I’m, I’m pleased to ask Frank Clegg on the chairman of our Business Advisory Council, the leader of efforts in Canada on this effort for a few closing remarks.

Frank Clegg: Thank you again, Devra. I want to thank you and Theodore directly and the rest of the team that did such a tremendous amount of work, as you said, there’s 1000s of pages of testimony that has to be organized. Robert, and, Paul, thank you for your excellent comments. And I just like to make a comment, you know, as an international invitee. We said this at the beginning, what the FCC in the US does, has an impact of ripples around the world. So we were sitting there trying to figure out how can we use it and I I know there’s other peers of mine around the world leading other organizations and advocacy groups, trying to figure out how we can use this. So I want to thank you. Again for your work, I want to thank the almost 400 people who attended. If you’re not engaged in this topic, I encourage you to do so if you are a member of the any kind of legislature, I encourage you to use this outcome and this precedent setting ruling in any way you can. So again, thank you, thanks to the attendees. And thanks to the panelists. And, and let’s, let’s I look forward to the next steps in this incredible journey.

Dr. Davis: As we do we and thank you to all have a good day.