Historical 5G Lawsuits Against FCC Are Now Underway – This is Why You Should Care


.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is required by law to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. However, when it comes to our ever-expanding internet coverage and 5G, FCC has defiantly abdicated its responsibilities.

The Commission has refused to update its 24-year old wireless radiation limits which are based on outdated, erroneous data. They continue turning a blind eye to the dangers of 5G and rubberstamping its rollout.

We are being told that accepting 5G is inevitable, but we are NOT being told how everything in the world is being exposed to untested ultra-high frequency microwave radiation at unprecedented levels – levels 100 times higher than the limits agreed upon more than 20 years ago.

One thing is very clear: close ties between regulator and industry are allowing robust science to be ignored!

As a result, a number of lawsuits have been filed against the FCC for failing to protect Americans from unsafe levels of radiation from wireless technologies.  One legal action is being spearheaded by Dr. Devra Davis and the Environmental Health Trust - that press conference is featured in the video above. You can read this lawsuit on Law & Crime.

Leading environmental attorney Robert Kennedy Jr. and his team are also taking the FCC to task over their negligence on wireless health guidelines.

Even Erin Brockovich has joined the fight!

The history of this issue, as well as government-industry entanglements, is very complex and would require a book to cover. I expect there will be a book someday - or books.

In the interest of brevity, here are some points worth considering.

  1. FCC has adopted the position that RF limits established more than two decades ago are adequate to protect the public from today’s technologies – including technologies that were not even in existence at the time the guidelines were established.
  2. The FCC's 1996 standards address only one aspect of potential harm from electromagnetic radiation—heat. Science has well established that non-thermal EMFs from wireless devices pose numerous biological threats.
  3. In 2002, a letter from EPA confirmed that existing RF limits failed to consider impacts from long-term non-thermal exposure, or its increased impact on sensitive populations such as pregnant women, children, and the elderly. 
  4. In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report finding that existing RF standards may be based on outdated science and may need to be updated.
  5. In 2019, a published analysis in IEEE (journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) of French cell phone tests found that some RF measurements exceeded FCC limits by 11-fold. 
  6. In December 2019, the FCC refused to update its RF human exposure limits set in 1996, finding it “unnecessary” to update evaluation procedures, including testing cell phones for radiation emissions in body contact positions.
  7. Reams of scientific evidence exist showing serious biological effects at RF (radiofrequency) levels far below the FCC's existing limits, as well as numerous individuals who have been injured by RF. The Commission has ignored peer-reviewed scientific studies showing RF from cell phones, towers, and other transmitters is associated with severe health effects in humans, including cancer, DNA damage, reproductive abnormalities, and brain damage.
  8. The recent National Toxicology Program study that examined links between cell phone radiation and cancer found conclusive evidence for malignant brain tumors and other severe health effects. FCC dismissed these findings because the FDA issued a statement disagreeing with NTP conclusions.
  9. Science has shown that children and pregnant women are more vulnerable to the negative health effects of cell phone radiation due to its impact on their developing brains. The FCC declined to update its regulations to account for the unique vulnerability of children to RF radiation. 
  10. The FCC is ignoring the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which asked the FCC to test phones the way we use them - in positions against the body - and the FCC said that was "unnecessary."
  11. FCC also ignored scientific evidence of harm to bees and other insects, trees, microorganisms, and wildlife. Bees and other insects have been found to absorb RF frequencies in the ranges used by our wireless telecommunications, 2 to 120 GHz, with peak absorption and biological effects occurring at 5G frequencies. Pulsating energy creates tiny shock waves that will damage insect wings, antennae, and other delicate body parts. In other words, Insects will simply cook. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning has already been observed in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency EMFs. (More environmental research here.)
  12. Radiofrequency radiation has been found to injure trees around mobile phone base stations.
  13. Wireless technology consumes 10 percent of the world’s electricity consumption.
  14. The current lawsuits contend that FCC’s actions are “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion,” “not in accordance with the law,” and that FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately review the hundreds of relevant scientific submissions finding harmful effects from wireless technologies.
  15. Additionally, a historic $1 trillion class action lawsuit has been filed against the FCC by numerous cities across the USA. Should a successful lawsuit precipitate an injunction, an immediate “cease and desist” order may be issued to every Telecom corporation.

We can no longer pretend that all is well.

It is difficult to even fathom the immense potential risk to the planet, to human DNA, and to our flora and fauna. There is no “test” for this, no parallel. DNA damage affects our very survivability; destruction of insects breaks a vital link in the food chain.

The FCC has been hijacked by the very body it was assigned to regulate - and it tolerates no opposition. The Precautionary Principle has been thrown to the wind.

How did we get here?

The following is an eye-opening video of an interview with journalist Mark Hertsgaard about the expose he coauthored in March 2018, “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe," published in The Nation.

If there were ever a time to make your voice heard, that time is now. Share this article and these links with anyone who will listen. Open some eyes!

You can support these important legal actions against the FCC at the following links:

Environmental Health Trust

Robert Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense

Erin Brockovich legal team