¿Qué es AVAATE? | Contacto | RSS 2.0 | Mapa del sitio | | | Buscar
Asociación Vallisoletana de Afectad@s por las Antenas de Telecomunicaciones - AVAATE

Portada del sitio > Prensa > U.S. Appeals Court rules against FCC in favor of wireless safety advocates (...)

U.S. Appeals Court rules against FCC in favor of wireless safety advocates on radio frequency exposure limits

Sábado 14 de agosto de 2021 · 118 lecturas

From: Joel M. Moskowitz PhD

U.S. Appeals Court rules against FCC in favor of wireless safety advocates on radio frequency exposure limits

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
August 13, 2021

My opinion: Today the dam of denial has begun to crack. A Federal appeals court ruled against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in favor of wireless safety advocates, This ruling represents a victory in the decades-long fight to get our government to adopt wireless radiation exposure limits that protect our health and the environment. The Court ruled that the FCC must "provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer" and justify its testing procedures for cellphones and other wireless devices.

I hope this ruling serves as a wake-up call to the Congress and the Administration. In 2015, a Harvard publication investigated industry’s control over the FCC, "As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest."

The FCC has no health expertise and must rely on federal health agencies to provide guidance on setting wireless safety limits. However, Congress defunded the Environmental Protection Agency’s research on wireless radiation in the 1990’s. The CDC has relied on industry-affiliated scientists for wireless radiation recommendations. Although the FDA weighed in with the FCC, the agency erroneously dismissed the results of the research it requested, namely, the National Toxicology Program’s $30 million study which found "clear evidence" of increased cancer incidence from cellphone radiation in male rats and DNA damage in male and female rats and mice from exposure to cellphone radiation.

Unfortunately, contrary to the claim in the Court’s ruling, "we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation," the Court not only took a position, they took the wrong position because there is considerable evidence of increased cancer risk from long-term exposure to low-intensity cell phone radiation (see links below).

For more information see: "Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it" (UC Berkeley News, July 1, 2021) and the links below.

— 

Wireless safety advocates filed a lawsuit against the FCC because the Commission employed an “arbitrary and capricious” process when in 2019 it reaffirmed its 1996 radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits by issuing an order that finalized an inquiry initiated in 2013 to determine whether the agency’s RFR exposure limits adequately protected human health.

The FCC’s cell phone and wireless radiation exposure limits are based on science from the 1980’s and earlier. The RFR limits that the FCC adopted were developed largely by engineers and physicists working for, or affiliated with, the military-industrial complex. Because the science underlying these limits is obsolete, more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal which states that:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life….

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.”

Wireless safety advocates (i.e., the petitioners) argued that the FCC must set aside its order for the following reasons:

“(1) the 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, and adverse effects on sleep, memory, learning, perception, motor abilities, prenatal and reproductive health, and children’s health; (2) the order fails to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation; (3) the order fails to discuss the implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, exposure to RF pulsation or modulation (two methods of imbuing radio waves with information), and the implications of technological developments that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices and Wi-Fi, and the emergence of “5G” technology;” and “(4) the order fails to adequately explain the Commission’s refusal to modify its procedures for determining whether cell phones comply with its RF limits.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit ruled that:

“We grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission. The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer.”

“For the reasons given above, we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer. It must, in particular, (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment. To be clear, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation—we merely conclude that the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.”

EHT et al. v FCC judgment: https://bit.ly/EHTvFCCjudgment
EHT et al. v FCC panel opinion: https://bit.ly/EHTvFCCopinion