Letters urging the FCC to conduct a robust review the latest science:
Leading environmental health organizations and scientists are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to promptly respond to the order of the U.S Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit in their recent judgment in Environmental Health Trust et al. v the FCC which mandated the FCC to re-examine the evidence regarding its 25-year-old wireless radiation safety limits. The new filing by Environmental Health Trust on November 30, 2021 requests the FCC re-open its official proceedings to allow the submission of new scientific research studies on the official record.
“We can no longer rely on 25-year-old science for today’s technology. Our nation cannot take a shortcut when it comes to public and environmental health. Now is the time for our nation’s regulatory bodies to ensure safety standards are based on the latest research,” stated Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former director of the National Institute of Environmental Science, and former director of the National Toxicology Program, one of many experts calling for this updated review.
EHTs filing included a letter from dozens of scientists, as well as the Environmental Working Group, Phonegate Alert, The Bioinitiative Report, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones and a member of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G. The new filings included a Report “Scientific and Policy Developments in Radiofrequency Radiation December 2019 through November 29, 2021” documenting the critical new scientific research studies published over the last two years which confirm biological effects from wireless radiation and the urgent need to strengthen the FCC’s regulations. The scientists assert that, if the FCC does not officially re-open the record, its response to the Court order would be deficient as it would lack the most recent scientific evidence and be an out-of-date review.
“Good government requires a serious hard look at the growing scientific evidence that indicates current levels of wireless radiation pose a serious threat to human health and the environment,. We look forward to the new FCC taking a fresh approach to this issue, “ stated Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president of Environmental Health Trust.
- Link to Environmental Health Trust FCC filing and letters by the Environmental Working Group, Phonegate Alert, The Bioinitiative Report, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones and member of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G.
- Link to Report on a Selection of the Published Science Indicating Adverse Health and Environmental Effects from December 2019 through November 2021
Excerpts from the Letter signed by U.S. and International Expert Scientists
“We write to you as scientists and public health experts deeply committed to protecting public health and the environment. As authors of numerous publications and reports in the field we urge that the FCC ensure a robust review of the latest science and expert recommendations in the FCC’s upcoming reexamination of its Inquiry on human exposure limits for wireless radiation…Importantly, we also recommend a full environmental impact review to evaluate 5G and the rapid proliferation of 4G wireless antennas in the USA. A three part review published in Reviews in Environmental Health found the scientific evidence showing adverse effects is sufficient to trigger new regulatory action to protect wildlife, yet the US does not have regulations that were ever designed to protect flora and fauna…U.S. safety limits for cell phones and cell towers must rest on sound science to ensure the public and wildlife are protected.”
Letter from expert scientists requesting the FCC re-open the record include recently retired Director of the National Institute of Environmental Sciences Linda S. Birnbaum, PhD; Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP, retired chair of environmental health for American Academy of Pediatrics; and other experts: Lennart Hardell MD, PhD, Devra Davis, PhD, MPH; Ronald M. Powell, PhD; David O. Carpenter, MD; Anthony Miller, MD; Kent Chamberlin, PhD; Fiorella Belpoggi PhD; Livio Giuliani, PhD; Morando Soffritti, MD; Rodolfo E. Touzet, PhD; Theodora Scarato, MSW; Colin L. Soskolne, PhD; Paul Héroux, PhD; Paul Ben-Ishai, PhD; Meg Sears PhD; Claudio Fernández Rodríguez; Igor Belyaev, PhD; Marc Arazi MD; Frank Clegg; John Frank MD; David Gee; Suleyman Dasdag PhD; Christos D. Georgiou, PhD; Prof. Dominique Belpomme, MD; Philippe Irigaray, PhD; Dr. Pierre Madl; Stella Canna Michaelidou, PhD; Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD; and Adejoke Olukayode Obajuluwa PhD. More Doctors and scientists are signing on to the letter.
Excerpts from the letter of the Environmental Working Group
“Our study, published in the journal Environmental Health, recommends strict, lower health-based exposure standards for both children and adults for radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices. This recommendation draws on data from a landmark 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program, one of the largest long- term laboratory studies on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure.”
“For today’s generation of children, exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication devices starts from the fetal development period as a result of wireless devices in the pregnant person’s everyday environment. Following birth, today’s children will be exposed to radiofrequency radiation throughout their lives – an exposure scenario that is drastically different from the very limited consumer use and exposure to wireless radiation of the 1980s and 1990s, when the basis for current FCC standards was established,”
Excerpts from the Bioinitiative Report to the FCC
“We urge the Commission to look at new scientific evidence published since December 4, 2019. Of 39 new genetic effect studies, 79 % (31 studies) showed effects and 21 % (8 studies) did not show significant effects. Of 33 new neurological effect studies, 85 % (28 studies) showed effects and 15 % (5 studies) did not show significant effects. Of 30 new oxidative effect studies, 93% (28 studies) showed effects and 7 % (2 studies) did not show significant effects.”
“The preponderance of scientific research on RFR continues on an upward trend. There is a broad consensus among those in the scientific research community who are knowledgeable on the published literature, that new, biologically based public safety limits for chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) are warranted now. The available evidence for health risks due to low intensity radiofrequency radiation exposures from wireless technology applications is sufficient and compelling. Research published over the last two years has added significant additional weight to the body of evidence which indicates that FCC public safety exposure limits are grossly inadequate to protect public health given the proliferation of RFR emitting devices now in common usage.”
–Letter from the Bioinitiative Report: Cindy Sage, M.A., Henry Lai, Ph.D. David O. Carpenter, MD and Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D.,
Excerpts from the Letter from Kent Chamberlain PhD, member of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G Health and Environment
“I am Professor and Chair Emeritus at the University of New Hampshire Department of Elec- trical & Computer Engineering and served on the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G Technology. After a year of investigation we issued our final report on November 1, 2020. I want to ensure the fifteen recommendations of the expert New Hampshire State Commission are considered by the FCC.
Recommendations by the New Hampshire Commission include:
- “The State of New Hampshire should engage agencies with appropriate scientific expertise, including ecological knowledge, to develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect the trees, plants, birds, insects, and pollinators”
- “Schools and public libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops, pads, and other devices, to hardwired or optical connections within a five-year pe- riod starting when funding becomes available.”
- “Require that the most appropriate agency (agencies) of the State of New Hampshire include links on its (their) website(s) that contain information and warnings about RF-radiation from all sources, but specifically from 5G small cells deployed on public rights-of-way as well as showing the proper use of cell phones to minimize exposure to RF-radiation, with adequate funding granted by the Legislature. In addition, public service announcements on radio, television, print media, and internet should periodically appear, warning of the health risks associated with radiation exposure. Of significant importance are warnings concerning the newborn and young as well as pregnant women.”
Letter from the PhoneGate Alert Association
“There has been new legislation regarding transparency on wireless radiation in France. Starting in July 2020, the wireless industry must label tablets, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, DECT phones and other wireless connected electronics with the radiofrequency radiation SAR exposure levels for consumers at point of sale and for all advertising. This includes the SAR for the head, trunk and extremities. All equipment used close to the head, hand-held or carried close to the body is potentially covered. From the SAR Regulation Guide provided by ANFR, you can find a non-exhaustive list of equipment qualified as radio equipment that required SAR testing.
Note: For years France law has ensured cell phones were SAR radiation labeled, banned the sale of cell phones designed for young children, prohibited advertising to children under 14 years of age and warned users to keep devices away from the body.”
Excerpts from the Consumers for Safe Cell Phones Letter
FCC’s current testing protocol allows a separation distance between the phone and the torso simulating use in a holster or belt clip, enabling a phone to pass the FCC compliance test when in fact, the exposure from phones used in real life usage positions will likely exceed the federal “safety” limit. This is because it is commonplace for today’s consumer to carry a transmitting phone in a pants or breast pocket or tucked into a bra with no separation between the antennas and the body.
Here are some examples of the RF warnings for wireless devices currently on the market in 2021:
- The Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max RF Exposure statement reads, “iPhone is evaluated in positions that simulate uses against the head, with no separation, and when worn or carried against the torso of the body, with 5mm separation.” [Users will likely carry and use transmitting phones in pockets and bras against their body unaware because the RF “safety” warning is located in the small print of the legal section deep within menus on the phone where it is not likely to be found.]
- The Miku Pro Smart Baby Monitor manual states, “RF EXPOSURE WARNING: ….This equipment should be installed and operated with minimum distance 20cm between the radiator and your body.” [Yet many parents will locate these RF transmitting monitors close to the crib or in a child’s playroom unaware that these RF warnings are in the manual.]
- The AT&T DECT 6.0 Home Cordless Phone manual states, “The telephone base shall be installed and used such that parts of the user’s body other than the hands are maintained at a distance of approximately 20 cm (8 inches) or more.” [Yet many people install the base unit on the desk just inches from their head or on their bedside table unaware of these instructions.]
BACKGROUND ON EHT et al. v FCC
In 2019, the FCC issued a formal decision not to update its 1996 safety limits for cell phone, cell tower and wireless radiation. Although the FCC decision was supposed to be based on a years-long review whereby thousands of pages of evidence had been submitted to the official FCC record, the FCC ignored the majority of health and environmental issues raised in these record submissions. This is why Environmental Health Trust filed a lawsuit against the FCC in January 2020 for ignoring the science. Environmental Health Trust filed its case in the Court of Appeals with Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato, MSW. EHT’s case was then consolidated with a separate case filed by Children’s Health Defense, Michelle Hertz, Petra Brokken, Dr. David O. Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran, and Paul Stanley M.Ed. Briefs were filed jointly.
In August 2021, a landmark court judgment was issued in EHT et al v. the FCC. The court found the FCC had engaged in arbitrary and capricious behavior because it ignored the issue of children’s vulnerability, effects from long term exposures, the testimony of people injured and the effects to trees, birds and wildlife. The Court then ordered the FCC to re-examine the evidence on their record and address these issues. Factsheet on EHT et al v FCC Case.
About Environmental Health Trust
Founded in 2007, Environmental Health Trust, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy. EHT conducts cutting edge research on environmental health hazards and works with communities, health, education professionals and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Currently, EHT works with scientists, policymakers, teachers, parents and students to promote awareness on how to practice safe technology. EHT was created to promote health and prevent disease one person, one community and one nation at a time. The Environmental Health Trust has worked on the issue of wireless radiation for over a decade submitting thousands of pages of evidence to the FCC in the years leading up to the court’s decision. EHT scientists testified in 2009 Senate hearings and 2008 congressional hearing on cell phone radiation- the last ever held. EHT scientists have continued to publish studies on the health effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and organized numerous national and international scientific conferences on the issue. EHT’s scientific publications have been submitted to the FCC record as critical evidence.