Today we’re sharing news of a court case levelled against the FCC which has significant potential impact that is currently (as of today - March 8th, 2021) working its way through the United States Federal Court system.
We’ve been watching this case closely, and we want to share it with you because this case represents a shift in our consciousness of how radiation affects our bodies. Before now, courts were reticent to take cases like this on - but this could be a turning point!
Background of the EHT vs FCC Case
“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress, and published critical research on why children are more vulnerable. The FCC has ignored our extensive submissions to the FCC over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead, asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s healthy future.” said the President and founder of the scientific think tank Environmental Health Trust, Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH.
On July 30, 2020, Nobel peace prize holder, Dr. Devra Davis of Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a joint petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The landmark principle brief was confronting the decision of FCC which is related to the denial of 11,000 pages brief stating that FCC should review and upgrade the 25 years old exposure guidelines which are directly associated with the exposure of radio-frequency radiations (RFRs) to humans, animals, and environment.
RFRs are emitted from WiFi, 5G wireless communication devices, cell phones, and cell phone signaling antennas. These radiations are harmful to human health and the environment when exceeding the safe limits.
According to the director of the 5G and Wireless Harms Project at Children’s Health Defense, Dafna Tachover, “The most important evidence is the human evidence. Those who have been injured and died because of the FCC’s abuse of power, have been invisible to the FCC like the wireless radiation that harms them. The purpose of our case is to make this invisible problem visible.” Powerful words!
In the next stage of this landmark lawsuit, the oral arguments were held on January 25, 2021, at 9:30a EST in front of three respectable-judge panels including Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins of the US Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit. The hearing consisted of oral arguments which were virtual and live-streamed.
The Petition to the Court
Dating back to 1996, the FCC stands accused of overlooking the proof of the potentially damaging effects and harm from the non-thermal levels of RFRs we are exposed to. Instead, they only formulated health safety rules which protect consumers from the thermal levels of emissions including radiofrequency radiations from 5G and other wireless devices.
Although the number of affected individuals of RFRs is rising continuously with a significant amount of scientific evidence, FCC has shown no concern over the matter and has never evaluated or updated the exposure guidelines since their initial adoption of safety standards, which is over 25 years old.
(Do you remember the tech we had in the 90s? We do. It was nowhere near the radiation exposure we have now.)
The report published in 2012 by the Government Accountability Office, suggested that the FCC undergo a re-evaluation of health guidelines. Following this, FCC asked for public opinion by opening the docket 13-84 in 2013. The scientific community, doctors, medical organizations, general public of the cities including Boston and Philadelphia, scientific organizations, and hundreds of parents of affected children responded with almost 2000 comments! This is a huge number.
Still, choosing not to acknowledge the solid evidence provided by the scientists and various other individuals, FCC turned down the request for a re-assessment of safety guidelines on Dec 4, 2019. FCC’s order is categorized under the violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and is devoid of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
As a consequence, EHT and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones filed a petition against FCC’s decision.
Similarly, another lawsuit was filed by CHD and numerous other petitioners including the director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany Prof. David Carpenter, Elizabeth Barris, Theodora Scarato MSW, Michelle Hertz, Petra Broken, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran, and Paul Stanley M.Ed.
“The scientific consensus is that the FCC guidelines have no validity and are causing widespread illness and death,” stated Dr. David Carpenter, co-editor of the BioInitiative Report which is an in-depth analysis and thorough review on the health impacts caused by the radiations emitted from wireless devices and infrastructure. The authors of the report are 29 renowned scientists and public health experts.
The petitioners were of the view that as the FCC refused to consider the clear evidence of the harm caused by the uncontrolled proliferation of 5G and other wireless devices, they also violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FCC’s decision is alleged to be capricious, an abuse of discretion, and stands counter to the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).
Scott McCollough, attorney at Children’s Health Defence, also mentioned his comments in the brief submitted by the petitioners, which are quoted as: “The refusal to recognize that real people — those the FCC is required to protect — are suffering, and the withholding of any promise of relief violated its responsibilities … was an abuse of discretion. The commission owed an apology but delivered a gut-punch.”
Moreover, the arbitrary and potentially obsolete safety guidelines of FCC have paved the way towards the rapid propagation of the 5G and other wireless infrastructure. The introduction of 50 billion wireless devices, 800,000 more cell towers, 50,000 satellites in space interconnected with 1,000,000 antennas on earth has forcefully exposed every living creature to a mass of RFRs which could now be re-classified as harmful, because of this case.
The written statement provided by the Commission’s staff is a clear depiction of the denial from the evidence provided that demonstrates harm can be caused by radiofrequency radiations that are non-thermal. According to FCC staff, “No expert health agency expressed concern about the Commission’s RF [radio frequency] exposure limits,” and others who commented and presented scientific research failed to provide “any specific, pragmatic recommendation for how our RF exposure limits could be adjusted.”
The Oral Arguments: Environmental Health Trust et al. v. Federal Communications Commission
On January 25, 2021, the attorneys Edward B. Myers W. of the Law Office of Edward B. Myers; and W. Scott McCollough of the McCollough Law Firm P.C. were representing the petitioners i.e. EHT et al. whereas William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis and Richard Kiser Welch were representing FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The oral argument was heard on Monday by the honorable Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins. The judges had gone through the submitted documents including petitions, briefs, and the FCC docket with concrete evidence in the form of comments. The petitioners were compelling the FCC to re-evaluate and update its 25 year-old RFR exposure guidelines (which to their minds are now obsolete), by providing substantial evidence of radio-frequency-related sickness and harm. We are living in strange times when this case needs to be taken to the courts.
Attorney Scott McCollough initiated the argument with a quote of a woman who was told by the FCC during the discussion of her injury: “We don’t deal with humans, we deal with frequencies.”
This is a defence argument which is deeply flawed. As Omnia is very keen to inform everyone, humans are beings of energy, frequency and vibration. All our cells carry electrical current (or light) and each organ in the body is vibrating at differing frequencies. It is because we are electrical beings that we react to microwave radiation fields, whether thermal or non-thermal.
Judge Robert L. Wilkins was concerned and questioned the FCC attorney Ashley S. Boizelle that, “I’m just going to be very upfront with why I am inclined to rule against you.”
Judge Patricia Ann Millet further added, “And so I’m just trying to understand how coming back and talking about cell phones that are in a holster—where nobody keeps them anymore—or in a purse when they’re not being used is at all… and looking only at cancer is at all relevant to an inquiry, again, into the effect of this radiation frequency from multiple devices that are used in entirely different ways now, in entirely different volume, and throughout the population, including children who live on iPads.”
Judge Patricia Millet was constantly asking the FCC council, the reason behind the ignorance and failure of FCC and FDA in considering the abundance of evidence of non-cancer effects of wireless infrastructure.
“It was quite impressive to note how thoroughly the judges had read our brief in this complicated case. They asked pointed questions about what we have documented in our case to be the failure of the FCC to produce a record of reasoned decision-making. For example, the judges zeroed in on the fact that there is a US interagency radiofrequency working group of which there is no record of consultation,” stated Dr. Devra Davis
“Further, they questioned the FCC regarding the fact that its technical advisory group on electronic products had failed to weigh in on cell phones altogether. Further, they questioned the FCC regarding the fact that it’s own technical advisory group on electronic products had failed to weigh in on cell phones altogether. The justices questioned how the agency could ignore the undeniable fact that the types of devices, wireless uses, and users of wireless devices are radically different today than they were when the standards were first set.”
What Happens if EHT Wins the Case?
Planet Earth is now under forced exposure of 5G and other wireless devices associated with the emission of radiofrequency radiation. Any ruling that decides that this is indeed dangerous would affect a massive amount of investment in this architecture. The financial impact alone would be huge.
An EHT et al. win would be a major step towards creating a future where the technology that we use has more solid safety tests that are relatable and set by independent third parties. It will help set a precedent that will allow us and future generations to question the safety standards related to the technology we use and our exposure to levels of radiation that we cannot foresee.
On the extreme end of the scale, a ruling in favour of the EHT has the potential to change the very way that we consume data today - whether wirelessly or via cables - especially for children and especially in schools.
This court case is just a step in the right direction to urge the governing bodies who are responsible for our safety to acknowledge that there are grounds for believing that ‘non-ionizing’ radiation is harmful.
We hope that this will also open a new avenue for us to continue to explore new models in science that help to explain WHY we react to wireless radiation and following that, to open new ways to provide safe technology. Omnia's science states that radiation needs to be re-classified. It is either balanced (like the Sun, which is the giver of all life) or it is 'imbalanced' and you can find our explanation of this here.
We will tell you what we know which is that ALL man-made radiation is imbalanced. Whether it is low in frequency (like radiofrequency radiation from phones) or high in frequency (like you'll find in an X-ray). The frequency just tells us how fast the imbalanced electrical wave field is vibrating. The faster it vibrates, the faster it will have an adverse effect on organic life.
We know that conventional science hasn’t taken this leap in understanding yet, but we will be here when they do - ready to help provide a solution.
What do you think about this court case? Let us know in the comments!