Court Rules FCC Guidelines Are Not Proven Adequate in Protecting Health & Environment

Last year, we wrote about a major lawsuit related to the effects of radiofrequency radiation on human health and the environment.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was challenged by two health and environmental activist organizations, Children’s Health Defense and the Environmental Health Trust, for refusing to update its grossly outdated and inadequate wireless radiation “health” guidelines that were established 25 years ago and haven’t been updated since.

Earlier this month, the D.C. Court of Appeals made their final decision.  The FCC lost the case, and was found guilty of ignoring substantive evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation.  After examining the mountains of evidence submitted by the plaintiffs on the wide spectrum of harm from wireless radiation, the court’s judgement states:

“The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”

The case is closed, the FCC lost, and now it is their legal responsibility to meaningfully address decades worth of scientific studies and individuals’ testimonies of RF radiation harming health and the environment.

We have been directly supporting this cause financially, through Blushield USA’s monthly donations to the Children’s Health Defense campaign to Stop 5G!  We are beyond happy that this case was successful and are excited to see how this ripples outward to help similar causes to fight the proliferation of harmful wireless exposure, and help more individuals to wake up to wireless harms now that the United States justice system itself is pointing out flaws in FCC accountability.

 

Reviewing the CHD vs FCC case on wireless exposure health guidelines

You may recall our initial article about this case we posted last October, after the principal brief was filed, called The FCC Is Being Sued!  How To Stop 5G.  The event that prompted the lawsuit last year was the FCC’s refusal to review and update their extremely outdated wireless exposure “health” guidelines that were established 25 years ago, in 1996, when public exposure to wireless radiation was a tiny fraction of what it is today.  The guidelines themselves only acknowledge possible harm from thermal effects (the exposure level it takes to heat human tissue), and completely ignore the large body of science (that even existed back then) pointing to non-thermal harms.

Almost 10 years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a recommendation that the FCC update its guidelines, which they had promised to do frequently when the guidelines were initially established, to reflect ever changing exposure levels.  As a response, the FCC opened a docket for public comment, which over the next several years, filled up with thousands of scientific studies and individual testimonies claiming widespread harm from radio-frequency radiation to the health of humans, animals and the environment.

Several years later, the FCC closed the docket, and without addressing ANY of the comments, decided that its guidelines were still adequate to protect health and that they did not need to update them.

The lawsuit, which was filed very soon after the FCC’s decision, claims that the FCC’s refusal to address the vast mountain of evidence is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, and an abuse of discretion.   The court agreed with this in their final verdict.  This accusation means that there is no rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions drawn, and they have “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,” and/or “offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.”

For clarity, the court’s decision didn’t state specifically that 5G and wireless radiation is harmful.  It stated that the FCC failed to consider substantial evidence that these harms exist.  In a certain sense, court’s decision implies that these harms exist and are valid, unless the FCC can prove otherwise.

To establish the case, the petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology.  The FCC is now tasked with addressing this evidence in a meaningful and rational way.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and attorney on the case, explains the deeper truth that spurred on the FCC’s actions and made it necessary to hold them accountable:

 

“The telecom industry, by subverting democracy, by corrupting public officials, by compromising the science, has built an industry on fraud. That does not mean that we can’t have a telecom industry that gives us very good cell phone service. We can have that and we can have safety, and we can have healthy children, too.

It’s just that they can make more money by taking shortcuts, by doing it cheaply, by ignoring the science, by corrupting public officials and subverting our democracy. They succeeded in turning two federal agencies, the FDA and the FCC, into models for agency capture. Those agencies no longer have any interest in protecting public health. They have become sock puppets for the industry that they are supposed to be regulating. The government and industry, they call their relationship a public-private partnership, and that should get us a little bit wary. They have made the space between government and regulators seamless, so you don’t know where one ends and the other begins. They’ve sold out the people of our country, they’ve sold out humanity, because everybody around the world looks to the FDA and FCC as the trusted regulators for science.

The 10,000 plus studies show that what they’re doing is horrendously dangerous.  It’s doing terrible harm to human beings, to our brains, to our wildlife, to our health.  They’ve taken all that and they’ve buried it.

What the court said to them today is, you cannot do that. You need to actually read the science. You need to do your job and protect public health.”

 

In the verdict, the court specifically referenced several aspects of evidence of harm that the FCC needs to address.  They mentioned evidence on radiation sickness, electro-sensitivity (EHS), neurological effects, prenatal exposure, sperm damage, and damage to the blood-brain barrier.  They mentioned oxidative stress, which has been established as a primary causal mechanism of harm.  The court emphasized that the FCC failed to address evidence of harm to children, as well as inadequate testing procedures for cell phone radiation emission, the effects of long-term exposure, and the pulsation and modulation aspects of wireless radiation (how the data is transferred).

Interestingly, the court put a lot of emphasis on the FCC’s failure to address environmental harms.  It’s likely that they gave this issue additional weight because one of the letters on the record was from another government agency.  In 2014, the United States Department of the Interior wrote a letter expressing concern about the effects of cell phone towers on migratory birds, which also points out that the FCC guidelines are 30 years out of date.  There is also a mass of other evidence included in the lawsuit indicating harm to plants, animals and the weather.

 

The FCC lost the case.  What happens next?

The ball is back in the FCC’s court, and they are now tasked with either providing substantial evidence that supports their decision not to update their guidelines (which doesn’t exist), or to go to work on changing their guidelines to actually reflect not just increased modern exposure levels, but also non-thermal effects.

It’s possible that they will appeal the case, just to buy time, and continue rushing the implementation of more and more 5G antennas.  Their decades-long strategy of ignoring the evidence that continues to pile up is only delaying the inevitable, so that may continue to be their only strategy for a while longer, putting their lies and deceit on a life support system to stave off death for another few breaths.

The alternative, which is actually changing their guidelines to reflect the truth of what we currently know to be the harms of wireless radiation, could send the whole wireless communications system as we know it into upheaval.

The telecoms would have to backtrack so far, and take down so many of their existing antennas and infrastructure because it will surely exceed healthy exposure levels, when these risks are finally acknowledged and officially admitted.  They would have to recall most of the cell phones on the market, or at least provide public notices warning cell phone users of potential harm to their health and offering guidelines for safer use.

Or, if the cell phone companies are innovative and adaptable in any way, the best thing may be for them to actually utilize their own patents for technological additions to the phones that decrease exposure and increase safety!

These changes may be slow going.  We have every reason to expect that the FCC will draw out this process as long as legally possible, because they are mainly concerned about the profits of the telecom companies that pull their strings, and do not actually care about the health of living organisms on this planet.

The favorable verdict of this case will most definitely affect several other active cases against the FCC and telecoms, including the 70+ active cases on brain tumors caused by cell phones, and the OTARD case that contests placing 5G repeater antennas on private properties without the consent of neighbors who will be affected by the radiation.

There are some kinds of changes that can happen far more quickly.  This will be the general public’s crumbling respect for the FCC, one person at a time, now that the court system has acknowledged their inadequacies and corruption.  Word of mouth is the most powerful force that will spread this awareness far and wide.  For many people, “the FCC says it’s safe” has been the only reason they dismiss the increasing health concerns and continue to use their cell phones in unsafe ways, keep their Wifi routers turned on all the time, allow the installation of wireless “smart” meters on their properties, continue to buy myriad “smart” devices for their homes, and not consider utilizing effective forms of EMF protection.

The illusion of safety that the FCC has been using to prop up public confidence just crumbled, and everyone needs to hear about it.

The best thing all of us can do at this point is spread the word!  If anyone has ever told you that wireless radiation is not a health concern because “the FCC says it’s safe”, send them this article.  Share this information with your children’s school, and local government officials who are able to influence local laws.  Word of mouth between individuals can make change far more quickly than the movement of these slow, cumbersome regulatory organizations.  Also, the more awareness the public has about these issues, the more pressure we put on these organizations to address them and change their tune to support public and environmental health.

 

References:

“Historic Win’: CHD Wins Case Against FCC on Safety Guidelines for 5G and Wireless” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-wins-case-fcc-safety-guidelines-5g-wireless/

United States Court of Appeals decision regarding EHT/CHD vs. FCC case – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-v-fcc-we-won-decision.pdf

“11,000 Pages of Evidence Filed in Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/landmark-5g-case-against-fcc-hearing-set-jan-25/

“Watch Press Conference – CHD Historic Win Against FCC on 5G & Wireless Health Guidelines” – https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-vs-fcc-aug-16

This post copyright © 2021 Blushield USA. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited.