New bills SB 556, SB-378 and AB 537 in California threaten the safety of our neighborhoods and homes. Designed to lower the costs of Telecom companies to implement the installation of thousands of "small" cell towers in cities and towns to create 5G "Smart" Grid Networks, these bills "streamline" the process by eliminating the requirement of City Commissioner Planning hearings for installations with public comment. Similar bills are expected to roll out across the United States.

小児科医のDr.MichellePerroと私たちのディレクターであるZenHoneycuttは、カリフォルニアの議員に本日法案AB 526の危険性を警告する手紙を送り、あなたの州または市で使用するためにこれらの手紙を再発行することを許可しました。

Recommendation to residents: Request a 1 hour study session before the City Council to discuss this following crucial issues which cannot be fully covered in detail in 3 minutes. You can make a presentation with a lawyer, engineer, doctor etc and fully discuss the resident’s perspective in order to support your Commissioners or Council to make the best decision.

OR have 10 people say the following 10 points in a city commissioner or city council meeting or study session. Three minutes each point to be flushed out ASAP in a separate expanded document. This document is more concise and useful for a one on one meeting with council members, study session or for submission as a letter. Download pdf of this document here.

An example presentation on Public Fiber Optic benefits pdf of a PPT is available here.

Email [email protected] with questions or for different files to these documents.

More information for your own presentation can be found on EHTrust.org, 5GCrisis.com, WearetheEvidence.org, Mystreetmychoice.org, and  MomsAcrossAmerica.org

Document for _______City Council and Planning Commissioners Regarding “Small” Cell Wireless Telecommunication Facilities

 (send separately)

Note: In this document a “small” cell wireless telecommunication facility will be referred to as sWTF.

We, The Residents of ________City, Request the Following Course of Action be Taken by our City Commissioners and City Council Regarding Any “Small” Cell Wireless Telecommunication Facility Applications or Construction.

REQUESTED COURSE OF ACTION

The City’s best course of action is to obtain a tolling agreement or moratorium on current and future applications and construction until the rulings of the lawsuits against the FCC are released, the two bills which may abolish the FCC guidelines are voted upon, and the rulings or regulations are included in the updated ordinance for underground telecommunication utilities.

• LAWSUITS AND LEGISLATION - There are currently 3 lawsuits filed against the FCC regarding sWTFs , one of which will be concluded within a few months. There are currently 2 bills HR 530,  S.2012 which move to abolish the nearly 30 year old FCC guidelines and update them. Prudent city planning would include the results of these lawsuits and bills which may result in significant regulation changes, restrictions of operation or allowance of a moratorium on sWTFs. Any rush to approve structures in our city may result in useless, unsightly structures in our city. We ask the city to come to a tolling agreement with the applicants or state a moratorium until these legal and legislative matters are settled.
  

• INSURANCE - There have been multiple lawsuits filed by the residents against city council members of various cities for neglecting to protect the health and safety of the residents from harm from radio frequencies (RFs) of sWTFs. These lawsuits could bankrupt a city or city council members. This is happening because the carriers do not have RF insurance. All applicants must be required to carry RF insurance and secondary insurance in order to protect the city from similar lawsuits. This Insurance must cover EMF physical, psychological and or emotional damage and list the City as an additional insured under the policy.

•  HEALTH IMPLICATIONS - The applicants say that these sWTFs are “Safe according to FCC Standards” (actually they are guidelines) and this statement means absolutely nothing...the FCC guidelines were created 24 years ago and do NOT include healthy, safety or environmental impact.  Numerous health issues, including headaches, confusion, fatigue, stroke, cancer, and infertility - have been reported and documented from the frequencies of 2,3,4 and 5G. Resources on EHTrust.org
  
  The City has the obligation to consider (but not make decision upon) impacts which may affect the Health, Safety and General welfare of its citizens.
  
  Consider- according to a Supreme Court decision, T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356, the following side note is important for city planning: “For example, lines or equipment might, generate noise, cause negative health consequences, or create safety concerns.”
  
  NOT considering health and approving sWTFS near residences, has resulted in lawsuits from residents in other cities against the city. These lawsuits are much more serious than the slap-on-the-wrist lawsuits that Telecom may try. These sWTF lawsuits can and will bankrupt city council members and/or our city coffers. Therefore, it is the duty of the city planners and council to delay and prevent construction of sWTFs for as long as possible.
  

• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - The environmental impact is being disregarded in the application of construction and operation of most sWTFs. The National Resource Defense Fund ( NRDC) sued the FCC and won- meaning it is required for applicants of sWTF construction and operation to conduct an environmental assessment according to the  National Environmental Policy Act NEPA. Birds, bees, insects, pollinators and plants have been shown to be impacted by the radio frequencies emitted from these sWTFs and must be considered in the location and amount of effective radiated power emissions. Plants are weakened and become more frail ( ie: flammable) which can lead to increased fire hazards.

•  FIRES and EMERGENCY RESPONSE - Wireless telecommunication facilities have started fires. NexG,  whose equipment on a top-heavy pole was partly to blame for the 2007 Malibu Canyon fire has agreed to pay $14.5 million for damages and maintenance.  Birds can also build nests on the top of poles and start fires. In this current climate, or any climate, our city must require utilities to be underground to prevent fires, loss of life, businesses and property. SWTFs are above ground and can be compromised during extreme weather conditions, causing fires or limiting service for emergency response. The far safer, faster, more secure and reliable option is public fiber optics.

•  LOCAL CHOICE- INTERNATIONAL FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION MORATORIUM ON WTFS - The International Firefighters Association ( IFFA) has restricted sWTFs from being placed on their premises. This was after sWTFs were installed on a Firefighter facility, on the premise that they need the best technology to receive communications. The firefighters reported headaches, fatigue, confusion and even lost their way to common locations. Thus, the IFFA declared a moratorium on further construction of any WTFs ( small cell or macro) on their premises. If they don’t want it, why should we be forced to have an unnecessary service? Do we live in a democracy with a free market?
  

•  CITY MASTER PLAN - 5 YEAR PLAN FROM APPLICANTS - The aesthetics and reputation of our cities are a major factor in our appeal to new businesses, property value, and tourism. Our city planners and residents must know the plans of the applicants for sWTF or telecommunication utilities. The current applicants and future applicants must be required to supply a 5 year plan with locations and reasons why. Approving construction without a City Master Plan which incorporates multiple carriers and their 5 year plans would not be prudent city planning nor responsible to the residents.

•  ALLOWING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE -  Our city can have faster, safer, more secure and reliable service. We are not denying service to residents or the applicant’s  ability to do business, we simply want any additional telecommunications service to be provided in a manner which does not compromise our city’s aesthetics, safety, health of residents and wildlife. We have sufficient text and call service, meaning emergency services, with the current 4G service in our city. The current Telecommunications Act only requires local municipalities to allow installation of telecommunications facilities which support text and call service, not data downloading. In addition, the promised faster download speeds of data, like movies, from 8 seconds to 4 seconds, is not necessary, nor is it a service worth compromising our city’s aesthetics, safety, and health.
  
  Underground telecommunication utilities are in alignment with our city planning, historically, and aesthetic reputation -  above-ground is not. By updating City ordinance to require additional telecommunications utilities to be UNDERground,  (Title I - Internet -) The City is not prohibiting telecommunications service because fiber-optics to the premises (FTTP) fulfills any and all service needs. 
  
  Title II - Voice/Text, the City already has full coverage without any significant gap in coverage.*
  
  

• EMS ADA DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION - The city must provide accommodation for Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) according to the American Disability Act (ADA).  The only way to fully accommodate EMS disability in our city is to require further telecommunications utilities to be underground. Otherwise, above ground facilities mean that a EMS disabled person could not live, shop, eat in restaurants, visit neighbors, or work in most areas of our city. 

If the city commissioners and/or city council choose to potentially violate the ADA by permitting above-ground sWTFs, the ordinance must, at least, include a notification to all occupants of any building within 1000 feet of the construction of the proposed construction informing them of their right to  submit a request for accommodation. The city will then engage in meaningful discussion with any resident or occupant of a building with EMS who has submitted a request. In the event that the city finds that as a result the antenna should not be located near that home, the application shall be rejected.

•  Our City’s Hands are NOT “tied.”- Telecom companies will have you believe “Your hands are tied,” that you cannot do anything other than allow them to construct and operate as many small cell towers as they wish, because they have invested billions of dollars in increasing their network in order to increase their profits. It is NOT true that our city does not have jurisdiction. You do have jurisdiction. 

The City has the right to regulate the Operation of any network deployed, separate and apart from the “Placement, construction and modification” of a system.

According to 47 US Code 332C, under the Senate Bill F652*, the Telecommunications Act 1996 specifically omits the word “operations” from preemption from regulation of a local municipality. This omission reserves that term for states and cities to legally regulate operations of facilities.

See Plan C for regulating operations if the city chooses to depart from historical city planning practices and allow above-ground telecommunications utilities.

Therefore, PLAN C includes that the City may approve construction according to ordinance requirements (distance and setbacks) AND OPERATION will be regulated through fulfillment of a conditional use permit which will include the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, time restrictions, power levels and other requirements. (see below)

• Public Fiber Optics - underground public fiber optic cables is a safer, faster, more secure and reliable technology for upgrading service to our residents. UNDERGROUND telecommunication facilities provides service that does not induce fires, permit security hacks, cause property damage in inclement weather and property value loss due to close proximity. UNDERGROUND also eliminates any possible violations of the American Disability Act, harm to workers in commercials districts, students, elderly, and tourists. Public fiber optics are a city asset and within local jurisdiction. UNDERGROUND public fiber optics maintain the aesthetics of a city and do not diminish the appeal of our city to new businesses.

We Residents, formally and legally request the following course of action for the aesthetics, safety, and health of our city and its residents:

Plan A - Determine as a city, that underground telecommunications are the best option for the aesthetics, safety and health of our city, residents and wildlife. Update ordinance to require additional Telecommunication Utilities to be underground based on aesthetics of long term, historical city planning and preservation of residential and city property value.

Plan B - Enact a tolling agreement or moratorium until FCC lawsuits are ruled upon and include the potential new requirements in an updated urgency ordinance which includes Plan A, underground telecommunications.

Plan C - Risk the aesthetics, safety and health of our city, residents and wildlife. Approve construction of WTFs but require a conditional use permit ( no shot clock), with quality analysis, which includes SEQUA, operation times (1), and power levels (2). (See below in point 13 of PLAN C ordinance updates) 

Plan A ORDINANCE Recommendations:

1. Clarify that all Wireless Telecommunication Facilities going forward are to be referenced as Telecommunications Utilities. Utilities in our city going forward, shall be UNDERGROUND and the ordinance shall be updated to reflect the historical preservation of city aesthetics.
   
   

2.  The ordinance shall require additional telecommunications to prove gap in coverage of text and call service before additional construction of telecommunication utilities are approved.
   
   

3.  Any additional upgrades to service can best be accomplished through fiber-optic cables which are safe, fast, secure and withstand power outages.
   
   

Plan B/C ORDINANCE Recommendations Only:

______  City Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance Update Requests

• A five-year master plan is required by all applicants. Applicants must supply sufficient reasons for placement in each location.
  

•  Stated general policy of intending to permit only the minimum network necessary/required by law.

•  Specific preamble describing the values of the City to be protected and recognizing that the Policy does not protect against health/safety with respect to Radio Frequencies (RF).

• Adopt a clause for least-preferred locations: all locations within 2000 feet of a Restricted Site Location and 2000 feet from a home.

• Restricted Site Locations: residence, playgrounds, elderly facilities, healthcare facilities and schools, which include day care, pre-school, K-12 and specialty schools where minors congregate.

• Third-party expert review of applications/exception requests.

• Mandatory, consistent, third-party RF emissions testing.

• Expert fire-safety review and shorter permit terms for facilities in high fire risk zones. Placement near trees would be non preferred.

• Clear exception request standards must be defined.

• RF injury insurance coverage, including secondary insurance in the event of a lawsuit for adverse health effects or property value loss is required.

•  Add a clause that states that permits are conditioned on continued applicability of FCC rules (to allow for revocation or modification if lawsuits against FCC prevail) or state law changes.

•  Ordinance must include affirmative FHAA/ADA accommodation commitment. Include a notification to all occupants of any sWTF construction within 1000 feet of the construction of the proposed construction informing them of their right to  submit a request for accommodation. The city will then engage in meaningful discussion with the applicant. In the event that the city finds that as a result the antenna should not be located near that home, the application shall be rejected.

  Please note that Los Altos has denied 13 applications and they have not been sued by the applicants.

•  If the city chooses to compromise our city’s aesthetics, safety and health, and risk lawsuits from residents by approving construction of sWTFs, approval of application for sWTF construction would only happen after FCC lawsuits have been ruled upon and bills HR 530 and S. 2012 have been voted upon. Estimated time is one year from now. The updated ordinance would include the current technology regulations, (1) operation time restrictions, (2) power level emissions,  (3) resident and school setbacks, and (4) reasonable distance between the construction of WTFS. This update will require a tolling agreement with the applicant.

According to an AT&T applicant's own data, their map of small cell LTE 100 (page 40 of 90 of application in Mission Viejo, CA) coverage reaches 2000-3000 feet. Therefore reasonable terms in the ordinance to specify distance are as follows:

Example:

• Operation times for WTFs within 2000 feet of residential areas would be from 8 AM to 5 PM. Operation time for WTFs in commercial or industrial areas would be 6 AM to 6 PM

• Levels of power would be set to a limit of 0.1 Watts of ERP for the total from all antennas and frequencies in the antenna shroud.

(3) Setbacks from homes, daycares, schools and places where children congregate should be 2000 feet. 

(4) Distance between poles should be 4000 feet ( reach of 2000 + 2000 = 4000). Search radius should also be 4000 feet.

Plan C Implications:  If the city chooses not to require telecommunication utilities to be underground as other utilities are required to be, it must acknowledge that the City becomes liable for lawsuits regarding placement, property value decrease, health impacts, fire losses, security and privacy issues, endangered species and animal welfare, and damages to property. The construction company contracted by the applicant is typically a LLC, and therefore escapes liability, leaving the City vulnerable to residents seeking remediation.

Further information:

No Significant Gap Coverage (proposed locations already have sufficient coverage for making calls and texting) will be presented at meeting.

Presentation PPT also available.

The City has the jurisdiction to regulate operations and therefore, power:

• Power means the maximum Effective Radiated Power that leaves the shroud or covering of the antenna.

By setting a limit of 0.1 Watts of ERP for the total from all antennas and frequencies in the antenna shroud, our city can preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets because it will require the Wireless Cos. to take away their 4-foot antennas and replace them with 4" antennas.

This will preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets and the signal will go down the street a half-mile down, receiving five bars on a cell phone, allowing everyone to make a call.

Service  from WTFs is sufficient with 0.1 Watt limit of Effective Radiated Power -- just like the FCC limit for Class B devices such as home Wireless Routers. The FCC already limits the ERP of Class B devices to 0.1 Watt ERP because they know a neighbor that is 25 to 50 feet away cannot generate electromagnetic noise high enough to interfere with my home environment.

IF a city allows these WTF poles 25 to 50 feet away from a home, we need them to behave like a good neighbor.

If the city does not restrict the distance to be at least 2000 feet away from a dwelling, the City can preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets by passing a local Ordinance that caps each small WTF to no more than 0.1 Watt ERP.

The City has the obligation to consider the “Quiet Enjoyment of streets.”

1. 8-9 of T Mobile v San Francisco case 

Read  http://scientists4wiredtech.com/compare

And  https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019-ca-supreme-court-decision-t-mobile-v-san-francisco/

. . . the City has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use . . . We also disagree with plaintiffs’ contention that section 7901’s incommode clause limits their right to construct [telephone] lines only if the installed lines and equipment would obstruct the path of travel. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the incommode clause need not be read so narrowly.

As the Court of Appeal noted, the word “ ‘incommode’ ” means “ ‘to give inconvenience or distress to: disturb.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Merriam-Webster Online Dict., available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommode [as of 4月 3, 2019].)8 The Court of Appeal also quoted the definition of “incommode” from the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary. Under that definition, “incommode” means “ ‘[t]o give inconvenience to; to give trouble to; to disturb or molest in the quiet enjoyment of something, or in the facility of acquisition.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Webster’s Dict. 1828—online ed., available at [as of 4月 3, 2019].)

For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the meaning of incommode has not changed meaningfully since section 7901’s enactment. Obstructing the path of travel is one way that telephone lines could disturb or give inconvenience to public road use. But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might

• generate noise,

• cause negative health consequences, or

• create safety concerns.

All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.

Links to important studies

National Toxicology Program

https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-radiation-is-associated-with-dna-damage-in-peer-reviewed-analysis-of-ntp-study/

Ramazzini Study

https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

BioInitiative Report Updated 2014-2019

https://bioinitiative.org/

Professor Martin Pall PhD.

https://www.emfacts.com/2018/08/martin-palls-book-on-5g-is-available-online/

Ruling on case No, 18-1129 and Case No, 18-1051 are of utmost importance.

Fires:

14.5 million dollar payout

https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-feb-22-la-me-power-pole-settlement-20130223-story.html

Birds building nests on cell tower and starting fire

https://www.opb.org/news/article/fire-damages-cell-tower-kills-two-ospreys/

INSURANCE ISSUE

Subject: Every Verizon Annual Report says that its insurers no longer cover the company for litigation involving Wireless Technology - especially 5G, which known to be lethal to animals

Thank you for your generous consideration and dedication!

Note: We may update this document as further information is learned about lawsuits and regulation changes.

環境健康トラストはFCCに対して歴史的な法的措置を講じます

FCCが24年前の無線放射制限の更新を拒否した後に提出された上訴。 

Washington, DC – A group of scientists, consumer health nonprofits, and citizens filed a historic legal action against the FCC for its refusal to update its 24-year-old cell phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation guidelines. The legal petition contends the FCC’s アクション is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” and “not in accordance with the law” as the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately review the hundreds of relevant scientific submissions finding harmful effects from wireless technologies.  

控訴は、環境健康トラスト、安全な携帯電話の消費者、および数人の個人を代表して、エドワードB.マイヤーズ法律事務所によって1月 31, 2020にコロンビア特別区サーキットの米国控訴裁判所に提出されました。マイヤーズは最近の勝利の一部でした FCCに対する訴訟 （天然資源防衛協議会および19部族グループとともに）これは、国家環境政策法に基づく環境レビューおよびコンプライアンスから小セル施設を免除するであろうFCC規制を覆しました。 

The legal action was featured in Law and Crime’s article  “Scientists Sue FCC for Dismissing Studies Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer” where attorney Edward B. Myers stated, “The FCC’s order terminated an inquiry into the adequacy of existing health and safety standards for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices and facilities, including cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters,” he said. “The existing regulations were promulgated in 1996 based on scientific data from 1992 and the FCC had commenced the inquiry in 2013 after the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report finding that the existing standards may be based on outdated science and may need to be updated.”

In 2012, the General Accountability Office issued a report recommending wireless radiation regulations be re-assessed leading to the FCC opening Docket 13-84  in 2013 asking for public comment on whether a review was needed. The FCC accepted submissions into the docket for years and took no action until 12月 4, 2019 when they decided that no review needed to be done and that wireless radiation limits were protective. 

EHT’s legal action challenges the 12月 4, 2020 FCC decision.Scientific submissions the petitioners contend were “ignored” in the FCC Docket included research documenting harm to wildlife and bees, the recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) study that confirmed cell phone radiation causes cancer and DNA damage, the Ramazzini Institute study, replicated studies finding tumor promotion, oxidative stress, reproductive damage, brain damage, and genotoxicity, cell tower research, and human studies finding increased brain tumors, headaches and memory damage. Submissions to the FCC indicate that childhood and pregnancy are times of unique vulnerability and that children are not only more exposed to cell phone radiation but also more vulnerable to its impact due to their developing brains. However the FCC stated, “We further decline to revisit our RF exposure policy as it pertains to children.” 

“The FCC decision flies in the face of mounting scientific evidence demonstrating harm from RF radiation and runs counter to the science-based decisions of other governments that have devoted major resources to evaluating new evidence on the issue and have taken steps to curtail exposures as a result of their findings,” stated Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust, a scientific think-tank that has long pushed for stricter regulations on RF emissions from cell phones and other wireless equipment. Dr. Davis testified in the 2009 US Senate hearing on the health effects of cell phone radiation, and EHT’s Chairman Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, founder of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, testified in the 2008 House hearings on cell phone radiation.

The litigation was prompted by an FCC Order, released on 12月 4, 2019, “FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards”, in which:

• FCCは、1996に設定されているUSRFの人体暴露制限の更新を拒否しました。 
• FCCは、身体接触位置での放射線放出について携帯電話をテストすることを含むように評価手順を更新することは「不必要」であると判断しました。  
• FCCは、携帯電話が身体接触位置でFCC曝露限界を超える可能性のある排出物を生成する可能性があることを認めましたが、「そのような曝露は依然として危険と見なされるレベルをはるかに下回るため、米国で合法的に販売された電話は健康をもたらさない」と述べました。リスク。」
• FCCは、FDAがNTPの結論に同意しない声明を発表したため、携帯電話の放射線による癌とDNAの損傷を発見したNTP研究の結果を却下しました。 
• FCCは、RF放射に対する子供たちの独特の脆弱性を説明するために規制を更新することを拒否しました。 

「FCCは、アメリカの健康と安全にとって最も危険な政府機関として歴史に残るでしょう。結局のところ、すべての男性、女性、子供、鳥、動物、昆虫が無意識のうちにいるので、この点でFDAを上回っています。無線放射にさらされた。損害賠償を求めて行けたらいいのにと思います。ワイヤレス業界自体のためにそれを保存する必要があると思います。ワイヤレス業界には再保険がないため、電気通信の救済法に注意してください」と、People'sInitiativeFoundationのLizBarris氏は述べています。 

Davis pointed out that FCC RF limits are 24 years outdated. “Would you want to fly in an airplane with 24-year-old safety standards? That’s what the FCC wants when it comes to cell phones and the latest technologies. Ignoring the government’s own tests showing that 3G and 4G cause cancer, ignoring the Cleveland Clinic and others that warn men to keep phones out of their pockets if they want to have healthy children, the FCC dares to propose that these outdated standards can safely be applied to 5G, a technology that did not even exist two decades ago.”

“The FCC’s recent order blatantly denies consumer health and safety advocate requests to require that phones be tested the way they are used—directly against the body. If not challenged, the rules will continue to allow manufacturers to “cheat” in order to pass the test by positioning phones as far as an inch away from the test equipment. No one knows they are being exposed to RF radiation that exceeds the federal limits simply by wearing and using a cell phone in a pocket or tucked into a sports bra. The testing procedure is designed to protect cell phone manufacturers….not the public,” stated Cindy Franklin, President of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. 

“The FCC is ignoring the recommendation of our nation’s largest organization of children’s doctors—the American Academy of Pediatrics,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT, pointing to the 2012 and 2013 letters to the FCC. “The AAP asked the FCC to test phones the way we use them—in positions against the body—and the FCC said it was unnecessary. The AAP asked the FCC to consider children’s unique vulnerability, and the FCC said it was unnecessary. The AAP asked for disclosure to consumers, and the FCC said it was unnecessary.” 

バックグラウンド

In the early ‘90s, the EPA was tasked with developing safety standards for radio frequency limits, but the task and EPA research was defunded in 1996. Then, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted RF exposure limits based largely on limits developed by industry/military connected groups (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 , NCRP’s 1986 Report). 

In 2008, the National Research Council report, “The Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices”, reviewed the research needs and gaps and identified the critical need to increase our understanding of any potential adverse effects of long-term chronic exposure to RF/microwave energy on children and pregnant woman.   

In 2008, the US House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy held a hearing “Health Effects of Cell Phone Use.”

In 2009, the US Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing “Health Effects of Cell Phone Use.”

In 2012, a Government Accountability Report stated cell phone radiation limits could be based on outdated research and utilized outdated and unrealistic premarket test protocols. 

In 2013, the FCC opened an official inquiry into its guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency. The FCC received more than 1,000 submissions to their Dockets 13-84 and  03-137. 

独立した科学者は、FCCの制限が時代遅れであると考えています。理由は次のとおりです。1。制限は、非加熱レベルで見られる生物学的影響からではなく、加熱効果のみからの保護に基づいています。 2。制限は、長期の慢性暴露ではなく、短期暴露の研究に基づいています。 3。制限は、子供の固有の脆弱性を考慮していません。 4。制限は、ミツバチ、他の昆虫、樹木、他の植物相、微生物、および野生生物への影響を考慮していません。 

Nearly two decades ago, a letter from EPA confirmed the fact that limits are not based on an understanding of impacts from long-term exposure. A 2002 EPA letter states, “Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long term, non thermal exposures,” and current FCC human exposure limits “are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations.” The letter clarifies that adequate scientific evaluations of the full impact on sensitive populations such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly have not been completed. EHT contends that the 2019 FCC action is arbitrarily dismissing the $30 million NTP study that was designed to determine if there was a risk from long-term non-thermal exposures. This study found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage in the rats and the mice. 

In 2014, the US Department of the Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration stating, “The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” Yet the 2019 FCC item refers to the 24-year-old thermally based limit as providing protections even if phones exceed the FCC limit when in body contact position. 

In 2016, the French government released cell phone radiation measurements of hundreds of cell phone models and found most of them violated RF limits when tested in body contact positions. 

In 2019, a published analysis in IEEE (journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) of the French cell phone tests found that some RF measurements exceeded FCC limits by 11 times. The analysis was performed by Professor Om Gandhi, an engineer who decades ago co-chaired the IEEE SCC 28.IV Subcommittee on the RF Safety Standards (the sub-committee that developed the standard on which the US FCC limits are based). 

In 2019, the FCC issued FCC-19-126 “FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards.”

In 2020 the suit was filed. The appeal was featured in Law and Crime’s “Scientists Sue FCC for Dismissing Studies Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer.”