By B.N. Frank
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. It has failed to do so for decades (see 1, 2). During the Trump administration lawsuits were filed against the agency for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of cell phone and WiFi radiation as well as 5G on Earth (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and in space.
There was a hearing for one of the lawsuits in January and judges expressed their disappointment with the FCC’s defense (see 1, 2, 3). Nevertheless, the agency continues to make contemptible decisions that put the public at grave risk. This includes approving the “OTARD” rule which allows property owners to install 5G antennas on their homes.
In February, Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit against the FCC for this ruling. The organization is having a press conference on Monday, March 22 to discuss its latest legal move.
CHD Files Emergency Injunction to Stop Rule Allowing 5G Antennas on Homes
Children’s Health Defense will hold a press conference March 22 to discuss why it seeks emergency relief to stay a rule that would preempt federal and state civil rights laws designed to protect the disabled.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Thursday filed a motion for emergency relief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Over-the-Air Reception Devices” (OTARD) Rule Amendment before it goes into effect March 29.
CHD is opposing an amended rule allowing private property owners to place fixed point-to-point antennas supporting wireless service on their property and, for the first time, to extend wireless data/voice services, including 5G, to users on neighboring properties. The rule purports to facilitate fast deployment of mesh Wi-Fi networks, 5G and the ground infrastructure for SpaceX satellites, especiThe amended rule allows installation of radiation-transmitting antennas on homes while preempting all state and local zoning authority. No permit is required, homeowners’ association and deed restrictions and any other state laws are preempted.
The focus of CHD’s motion for emergency relief is the FCC’s preemption of federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled and their rights for accommodations. People who are adversely affected will have no right to object to the installation of these devices, even though they will be involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation in their homes.
A motion for stay requires that the movants demonstrate: (a) likelihood of success on the merits in the case; (b) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm; (c) the balance of interests favors an injunction; and (d) a stay is in the public interest.
In its motion, CHD claims that if the amended rule goes into effect, petitioners and many others who developed radiation sickness (electrosensitivity) or other sicknesses caused or aggravated by wireless technology radiation, will suffer immediate, irreparable and, for some, life-threatening injuries. Many will be driven out of their homes, but nowhere will be safe for them, not even rural areas.
CHD argues petitioners are likely to win the case because the amended rule violates substantive and procedural due process rights, and is unlawful and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, and because of the irreparable harm to many, the court should grant the stay pending a final decision in the case.
Petitioners include a family physician and mothers of four children who are sick from wireless radiation.
CHD’s April letter to the FCC was joined by 6,231 people who declared that they and/or their children are sick from wireless radiation. Eleven affidavits were filed in support of the motion, providing evidence of widespread sickness and even death in adults and children.
Three of the affidavits were filed by experts, including Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., whose 2018 paper showed that the “mystery sickness” suffered by U.S. diplomats was likely caused by pulsed radio-frequencies The petitioners in the March 18 filing experience the same sickness and symptoms brought on by exposure to wireless technology.
Following the request of the U.S. Department of State to advise officials on the “mystery” sickness of the U.S. diplomats, in December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) published a report, “An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies,” confirming Golomb’s findings regarding the diplomats.
Riina Bray, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Canada — the first hospital clinic in the world to specialize in radiation sickness, wrote to the court that seven doctors in the clinic had already diagnosed more than 400 patients with the condition, and they have a long waiting list. In addition to having a medical degree, Bray has a degree in chemical engineering and a master’s in pharmacology/toxicology in the area of drug addiction and neurotoxicology.
In her affidavit, Dr. Toril Jelter, a California pediatrician treating 100 patients, including children, who suffer from radiation sickness, wrote about the improvement she is seeing in children with neurodevelopmental conditions after the families remove wireless devices from their house.
The effects of wireless radiation on children, especially those with preexisting conditions, was confirmed recently by the Swiss government’s expert committee on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation, BERENIS. In January 2021, the committee published an extensive evaluation of the scientific literature and concluded that exposure could cause or worsen several chronic illnesses, and that children and people with immune deficiencies or diseases are especially at risk.
“Injunctions are very difficult to obtain,” said Dafna Tachover, director of CHD’s Wireless Harms and 5G Project. “However, the grave and immediate harm and injustice that will be caused to many if this rule goes into effect is intolerable. For those who are sick, this motion is literally a battle for their right to exist. We had to file this motion no matter what the chances are.”
CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said: “By eliminating due process and civil rights protections, the FCC has shown that it will silence any evidence of wireless harms that threatens its wireless agenda. FCC is sacrificing the health of adults and children on the altar of Telecom profit taking. Removing people’s disability accommodations even in their own homes is morally and legally indefensible.”
CHD’s lead attorney for this case is Scott McCollough, a telecommunications and administrative law attorney with 35 years’ experience. Mr. McCollough also represented CHD in its previous and ongoing case against the FCC. The first case, filed in February 2020, challenges the FCC’s obsolete health and safety guidelines regarding 5G and wireless radiation. Oral arguments in the case were heard in January 2021. The case is now awaiting the court’s decision.
Prior to filing of the March 18 motion, CHD filed an administrative motion with the FCC to stay the rule amendment from going into effect until a decision in the case. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which lobbied for the rule amendment, opposed the motion. However, the FCC hasn’t ruled on the motion, and therefore, CHD filed a motion for an emergency injunction with the court.
Immediately after the filing of the motion to stay the rule amendment, the court appointed a three-judge panel to decide on the motion, comprised of Judith W. Rogers, Judge Rober L. Wilkins and Judge Neomi Rao. The court ordered the FCC to file its response on March 23. CHD will be able to file a reply to the FCC’s response on March 24. A decision is expected before March 29, when the rule is supposed to go into effect.
American opposition to 5G and other unwanted wireless installation continues to increase due to concerns about reduced property value (see 1, 2), public safety (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), health (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and environmental risks. Some opponents have described 5G installation as a form of “environmental racism.”
High speed internet is safer and more secure with a wired internet connection (see 1, 2, 3) – not 5G, 4G (see 1, 2) or WiFi (see 1, 2, 3). According to telecom experts, Americans have already paid to have safer high-speed internet via fiber optics (see also 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). If you are opposed to 5G, sign and share this letter asking President Biden and Vice President Harris to stop deployment ASAP.
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.