|«Latest ‹Forward News item: 7903 Back› Oldest»|
|More on US legal victory against FCC|
|Australia||Created: 28 Aug 2021|
Last week, we reported on the community’s legal victory over the USA’s standard-setting agency. The court said that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for deciding that its 1996 radiation guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation and that it failed to review the extensive evidence that the agency had received.
This week we’d like to tell you about the important role in achieving this impressive legal victory played by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a not-for-profit organisation that aims to eliminate harmful exposures to children.
‘The Children’s Health Defense believes that emissions from wireless-based technology, including cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and now 5G, are a major contributing factor in the epidemic of sickness we see now among adults and children. Many thousands of studies and, unfortunately, ample human evidence leave no doubt regarding the harms,’ said attorney Dafna Tachover, who led the case for the CHD.
The CHD’s case was joined by nine individual petitioners, including Professor David Carpenter MD, a public health expert and co-editor of the BioInitiative Report; physicians concerned about the effects of wireless radiation on their patients; parents of children who developed electrosensitivity and a mother whose son died of a mobile phone-related brain tumour.
They filed over 11,000 pages of evidence that wireless radiation causes harm.
One of the petitioners, Dr Paul Dart, was concerned about the damaging effects of wireless radiation he saw in his practice. He said, ‘by 2010 I was seeing more and more patients coming in who were having problems with microwave sickness. Some of them were completely disabled. Some of them couldn’t handle being in the classroom anymore as Wi-Fi came in. I had one patient who committed suicide, because she could not escape from these exposures.’
Dr Toril Jelter, also a petitioner in the case, has seen dramatic improvements in children whose exposure to wireless radiation was reduced. She said, ‘I have seen children in my practice that can’t walk because of exposure to wireless radiation, and when you decrease the exposure then they’re able to walk again. I had a boy with non-verbal autism that was 10 years old. He had never said a word in his life. And we decreased wireless radiation as a first-line attempt at helping him. He also had extremely aggressive behaviour, and his aggressive behaviour subsided, and within three days he said a full sentence. I have children that have learning difficulties, and by changing the wireless radiation in their home they have improved two grade levels in two months. There are children with ADHD who dramatically improve by modifying their exposure to wireless radiation.’
Robert Kennedy Jr, Chairman of the Children’s Health Defense and an attorney on this case, said that the telecommunications industry has ‘succeeded in turning two federal agencies, the The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] 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 court’s historic decision is a result of two separate cases that were consolidated into the same court - the Children's Health Defense's case and the Environmental Health Trust case. To comply with court rules, the organisations shared their work on the case and filed joint briefs. EHT's name appears first due to an arbitrary decision by the court but in no way lessens the contribution by the CHD.
The court ruled that the FCC's 2019 decision that its 1996 standard protect the public's health from 5G and wireless is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence based. The court ordered the FCC to review the evidence in regard to non-thermal harms of non-cancer effects including (1) radiation sickness / electrosensitivity (2) the effects of other elements of harm like pulsation and modulation and long term effects (3) the potential harm of new technologies such as wi-fi and 5G (4) pre-natal effects and effects of children (5) and to address the evidence on mechanisms of harm including oxidative stress and leakage of the blood-brain barrier (6) to respond to evidence of non-thermal harm when addressing cell phone testing and (7) evidence of environmental harms.
‘The court’s decision has changed the current status quo and has major legal implications’, said Ms Tachover. ‘Essentially, what this decision means is that until the FCC provides a review of the evidence regarding non-cancer wireless harms in a way that complies with the requirements of the law, the FCC guidelines can no longer be presented as an assurance of safety for harms, except for cancer harms.’
You can see more information about:
the CHD v. FCC case page here
the CHD's Press Conference here
The court judgement here
|Source: EMR Australia, via email, 28 Aug 2021|
|«Latest ‹Forward News item: 7903 Back› Oldest»|