Watch the trailer about the Electrosmog and Electrotherapeutics 101 Course with Magda Havas PhD Speaker Spotlight

Watch the trailer about the Electrosmog and Electrotherapeutics 101
Course with Magda Havas PhDSpeaker Spotlight

Magda Havas PhD presents:
Electrosmog and Electrotherapeutics 101

Online 4 hour CME/CE Course
Our exposure to electromagnetic fields/radiation is increasing from a variety of devices, at different frequencies with various modulations and a growing population is experiencing difficulties during exposure.  “Electrosmog and Electrotherapeutics 101” provides a basic understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, anthropogenic sources of electrosmog, and natural sources of electromagnetic frequencies and their role in bio-modulation. However, not all EM frequencies are harmful. Indeed, there is a growing interest in frequency therapy that includes pulsed electromagnetic fields and modulate light therapy that is proving to be highly successful around the world where these treatments are practiced. Some believe that these therapies are the future of healthcare.

Health care providers can learn about the harmful effects of electromagnetic pollution to help their patients who are electrohypersenstive (EHS) or whose cancer or infertility is associated with electrosmog exposure.  The electromagnetic spectrum is the foundation on biological responses to electromagnetic frequencies.

Magda Havas PhD is Professor Emerita at Trent University, School of the Environment in Peterborough, Canada.  She is an environmental toxicologist who has studied the effects of chemical pollutants in the environment and more recently the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields to ultraviolet radiation. She works with people who have developed electrohypersensitivity and is advising the health care/medical community on how to assess objectively this condition and how to help people heal. She also works on the beneficial effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF), vibrational therapy and light therapy. Read her complete bio and abstract here
Learn more about the course here EXTENDED!  50% DISCOUNT on EMF Medical Online Courses & Conference Videos

Online Pre-Conference Course 4 hours CME/CE $39
Online Conference Course 20 hours CME/CE $199
Videos $79Register for the Online CME/CE CoursesThe EMF Medical Conference 2021 Online Courses are evidence-based and feature prominent experts – doctors who treat patients with an electromagnetic field (EMF) associated illness; research scientists who publish papers demonstrating how EMF causes biological and health effects, EMF assessment specialists and public policy advocates.
– Learn how to prevent, recognize, diagnose and treat EMF associated illness
– Earn up to 24.5 CME/CEs
– Study at your own pace
Subscribe to the Conference Videos today! 
30 hours of recordings of all the expert presentations and group discussions from the EMF Medical Conference 2021
Special price of $79 EXTENDED!
includes the Pre-Conference Course videos
Show these videos online and educate others
ORDER TODAY

SMART METERS BLASTING THE 900Mhz BAND IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS!

Smart Meters blasting the 900 Mhz band

27,832 viewsJul 17, 201417328SHARESAVEglevideo356 SUBSCRIBE

This is what I discovered recently when the power company (BG&E) installed smart meters on my house to monitor my power usage. The smart meters are equipped with radios on both 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz and constantly transmitting data around the neighborhood just filling the 900 MHz band with constant chatter. I tuned my RF explorer spectrum analyzer to the 900 MHz band one day while in my house and was quite surprised to see all the constant activity where only months before it was rather quiet. I then walked the analyzer out to the power meter and saw many of the signals going way up off the scale, a good indication that those very strong signals were coming from my smart meter. Many of the weaker signals were coming from various other smart meters from around the neighborhood. Everyone in my neighborhood has one of these and they’re all chattering away keeping the 900 MHz band completely saturated with RF activity. The smart meter 900 MHz radios, I have found out, are typically 1 watt radios. In some cases they may have a 2 watt radio transmitter. They form what is called a MESH network where each meter, or node, becomes a repeater to carry data along from node to node to node all through the neighborhood until it reaches the collection point somewhere near the neighborhood. With each node repeating traffic from many other nodes plus sending out it’s own data, each node is busy most all the time transmitting a lot of data all through the day and night. I’ve monitored this for hours day and night and the traffic just doesn’t seem to let up. In this video I do not address the concerns by many who fear ill health from overdoses of RF radiation or security concerns about hackers breaking into the power company’s network through your smart to shut down the national power grid or to just maliciously manipulate power usage data in your meter. These concerns are addressed in many other YouTube videos by other contributors. I’m simply calling attention to RF pollution being caused by so many busy smart meters concentrated in populated areas. Also watch this: https://youtu.be/X3SjWubt5Lo

Hi-tech meters could hike electric bills

Hi-tech meters could hike electric bills

  • By Christian M. Wade Statehouse Reporter
  • 1 hr ago

    

BOSTON — Massachusetts electricity consumers, who already pay some of the highest rates in the nation, could be digging deeper into their pockets in coming years to cover upgrades to the regional power grid.

Two of the state’s largest utilities are proposing new charges to offset long-term upgrades in the electric distribution and metering systems.

Eversource, which serves about 1.4 million electricity customers in Massachusetts, is asking state regulators to sign off on a five-year, $620 million plan to replace hundreds of thousands of outdated “smart meters” with newer devices.

The utility says about 740,000 of the meters are nearing the end of their 20-year lifespan, and replacing them with the same equipment would be a waste of money.

“If the company were to continue to deploy (existing) meters on its system, it would be locking itself and its customers into a 20-year life cycle of outdated technology that is inconsistent with customers’ expectations of the modern and evolving grid,” Jennifer Schilling, Eversource’s vice president of grid modernization, wrote in testimony to the state Department of Public Utilities.

Schilling said newer “advanced metering infrastructure” offers the “only replacement solution that can ensure that the company is able to manage its distribution system.”

“There are no alternatives to AMI — it is the only metering solution available to effectively manage and interact with the modern grid,” she wrote.

National Grid, which has about 1.3 million customers in Massachusetts, is proposing a four-year, $487 million plan for replacing about 900,000 “smart meters” it says will reach the end of their life span in coming years.

Smart meters collect real-time information either daily or hourly. Utilities now read the meters using radio signals that can be picked up by vehicles driving through a neighborhood.

Newer meter technology is wireless and records data hourly, if not more often.

Electric utilities are allowed to ask for rate hikes to offset the cost of grid modernization, but both companies say the substantial cost of the metering upgrades will require a separate tariff that will be “incrementally” tacked onto monthly bills.

The companies haven’t said how much consumers will pay. Rates are ultimately set by state regulators.

Under Eversource’s proposal, customers will be allowed to opt out of the new metering technology if they pay a $48 fee for installation of a new meter and a $34 monthly meter reading charge.

By the end of this year 4 in 5 U.S. households are expected to have meters that use remote-reading technology, according to the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities.

The companies say the latest technology improves remote meter reading and efficiency, makes billing more accurate and reduces costs.

The planned upgrades face scrutiny from the state Department of Energy Resources and Attorney General Maura Healey’s office. A number of energy and environmental groups have also signaled interest in the proposals.

The DPU is holding a series of livestreamed hearings on the companies’ proposals over the next two weeks.

Meanwhile, the plans face opposition from individuals and groups that advocate against the expansion of wireless technology in light of health and safety concerns.

Nina Anderson, president of the Scientific Alliance for Education, wrote to the DPU that “crucial questions about the health, safety and environmental impacts of smart grid and smart meter investments have not been adequately addressed.”

“No further investigations of how to spend the ratepayer’s money to modernize the grid should be held until the question is addressed, of whether or not the health and safety of all customers can be protected, without cost-shifting the burden to customers, and without discriminatory surcharges,” she wrote.

Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

More on US legal victory


View in browser
More on US legal victoryLast week, we reported on the community’s legal victory over the USA’s standard-setting agency. The court said that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for deciding that its 1996 radiation guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation and that it failed to review the extensive evidence that the agency had received.This week we’d like to tell you about the important role in achieving this impressive legal victory played by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a not-for-profit organisation that aims to eliminate harmful exposures to children.‘The Children’s Health Defense believes that emissions from wireless-based technology, including cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and now 5G, are a major contributing factor in the epidemic of sickness we see now among adults and children. Many thousands of studies and, unfortunately, ample human evidence leave no doubt regarding the harms,’ said attorney Dafna Tachover, who led the case for the CHD.The CHD’s case was joined by nine individual petitioners, including Professor David Carpenter MD, a public health expert and co-editor of the BioInitiative Report; physicians concerned about the effects of wireless radiation on their patients; parents of children who developed electrosensitivity and a mother whose son died of a mobile phone-related brain tumour.They filed over 11,000 pages of evidence that wireless radiation causes harm.One of the petitioners, Dr Paul Dart, was concerned about the damaging effects of wireless radiation he saw in his practice. He said, ‘by 2010 I was seeing more and more patients coming in who were having problems with microwave sickness. Some of them were completely disabled. Some of them couldn’t handle being in the classroom anymore as Wi-Fi came in. I had one patient who committed suicide, because she could not escape from these exposures.’Dr Toril Jelter, also a petitioner in the case, has seen dramatic improvements in children whose exposure to wireless radiation was reduced. She said, ‘I have seen children in my practice that can’t walk because of exposure to wireless radiation, and when you decrease the exposure then they’re able to walk again. I had a boy with non-verbal autism that was 10 years old. He had never said a word in his life. And we decreased wireless radiation as a first-line attempt at helping him. He also had extremely aggressive behaviour, and his aggressive behaviour subsided, and within three days he said a full sentence. I have children that have learning difficulties, and by changing the wireless radiation in their home they have improved two grade levels in two months. There are children with ADHD who dramatically improve by modifying their exposure to wireless radiation.’Robert Kennedy Jr, Chairman of the Children’s Health Defense and an attorney on this case, said that the telecommunications industry has ‘succeeded in turning two federal agencies, the The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and the FCC into models for agency capture. Those agencies no longer have any interest in protecting public health. They have become sock puppets for the industry that they are supposed to be regulating.’The court’s historic decision is a result of two separate cases that were consolidated into the same court – the Children’s Health Defense’s case and the Environmental Health Trust case. To comply with court rules, the organisations shared their work on the case and filed joint briefs. EHT’s name appears first due to an arbitrary decision by the court but in no way lessens the contribution by the CHD.The court ruled that the FCC’s 2019 decision that its 1996 standard protect the public’s health from 5G and wireless is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence based. The court ordered the FCC to review the evidence in regard to non-thermal harms of non-cancer effects including (1) radiation sickness / electrosensitivity (2) the effects of other elements of harm like pulsation and modulation and long term effects (3) the potential harm of new technologies such as wi-fi and 5G (4) pre-natal effects and effects of children (5) and to address the evidence on mechanisms of harm including oxidative stress and leakage of the blood-brain barrier (6) to respond to evidence of non-thermal harm when addressing cell phone testing and (7) evidence of environmental harms.‘The court’s decision has changed the current status quo and has major legal implications’, said Ms Tachover. ‘Essentially, what this decision means is that until the FCC provides a review of the evidence regarding non-cancer wireless harms in a way that complies with the requirements of the law, the FCC guidelines can no longer be presented as an assurance of safety for harms, except for cancer harms.’You can see more information about:the CHD v. FCC case page herethe CHD’s Press Conference here The court judgement here Is 5G safe?Take a look at what the experts have to say in this short video by the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) hereWhat you can doDon’t take chances. See how you can reduce your family’s exposure to wireless radiation in my book ‘Wireless-wise Families’ here. Check out your family’s exposure to wireless radiation from your family’s digital devices with one of our wireless metersDo you have questions?Did you know you can talk to a consultant for professional advice?You can book our professional phone consultation with us hereWhat else you can doIf you found the information above of interest, please forward this email to others.If you’d like more information, you can download our latest issue of EMR and Health here.If you’ve been sent this message by a friend and would like to subscribe to future updates, you can do that here.
Warm regards
Lyn McLean
Director
EMR Australia PL
www.emraustralia.com.au
02 9576 1772

Researcher cites ‘significant risks’ of cellphone radiation in presentation to Lenox Board of Health

Researcher cites ‘significant risks’ of cellphone radiation in presentation to Lenox Board of Health

‘You don’t want to hear this, but the finding of the commission was that cellphone radiation is indeed harmful,’ professor says in informational talk

  • By Clarence Fanto, Eagle correspondent
  • Aug 24, 2021

LENOX — Placing a cell antenna atop the Curtis apartment building would cause “significant radiation” inside that building as well as across the street in Town Hall.

So says Kent Chamberlin, a retired electrical engineering professor at University of New Hampshire, who cautioned against potential risks surrounding the use of cellular technology. He also served as chairman at the UNH Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

During a public presentation before the Board of Health last week, Chamberlin highlighted the findings of a 13-member New Hampshire Commission formed in 2019 by state lawmakers to study the health and environmental impacts of 5G wireless technology.

Unpaid citizen experts on a state commission concluded that wireless radiation poses a significant risk to health and the environment,” said Chamberlin, who was on the commission.

“You don’t want to hear this, but the finding of the commission was that cellphone radiation is indeed harmful,” he said, adding that he was not being paid for his presentation. “The good news here is that there are things we can do to protect ourselves against that radiation, but we have to acknowledge that it’s a problem first.”

Retired University of New Hampshire professor Kent Chamberlin gives a presentation to the Lenox Board of Health on cellular technology health concerns.SCREENSHOT

“Unpaid citizen experts on a state commission

The Curtis apartment building in Lenox has been proposed as the site of a cellular antenna to boost the Verizon signal in the downtown area.GOOGLE MAPS

The Lenox Housing Authority is considering whether to allow a low-power antenna to be embedded in the chimney of the Curtis, a subsidized housing building, to augment weak cell signals downtown for Verizon users. The Curtis was suggested as the site because it’s the highest structure in the downtown historic district.

And the Planning Board is also considering revisions to its cellular bylaw.

The presentation was hosted by Tri-Town Health Executive Director James Wilusz, who introduced it as informational and not specifically focused on the proposed Curtis cell antenna.

Chamberlin, who asserted that he is not “anti-technology,” maintained that “the science is clear about the health risks of exposure to cellphone radiation, but it’s mostly political at this point; that’s what’s keeping us from moving forward.”

He also stated that “the only people I’ve run into so far who say that cellphone radiation is harmless are people affiliated with the cellphone industry.”

Chamberlin emphasized a number of concerns:

• “There is a large and growing body of evidence demonstrating that exposure to cellphone-type radiation is harmful to humans and the environment. These devices include cellphones, cell towers, Bluetooth, baby monitors, smart meters, cordless phones, Wi-Fi and ‘Internet of Things’ devices.” Those devices include digital-connected appliances, smart home security systems, and wearable health monitors, for example.

• The antenna on the proposed Curtis building site would transmit “very strong radiation” not only toward the horizon but also downward and across Walker Street to Town Hall, which would cause “significant radiation” inside that building as well as inside the Curtis. Chamberlin cited health-related “symptoms” among some Pittsfield residents after a cell tower was erected in a residential area on Alma Street off Holmes Road.

• Cell towers should be set back by 1,640 feet (just under one-third of a mile) from residents. In Lenox, he suggested a “tall tower” away from downtown “with a directional antenna, a great coverage area, and nobody would be exposed to excessive radiation.” Chamberlin cited a study in Brazil conducted from 1996 to 2006 claiming accelerated cancer cases leading to death among people living within one-third of a mile from cell towers. Other studies found similar results, he said.

• “Cell tower companies are willing to jeopardize the health of people just to save some money” by installing lower-cost antennas on buildings instead of constructing more expensive free-standing towers.

• Newspapers are not willing to publicize radiation-risk studies because some of their main advertisers are telecommunications firms, so “they don’t want to bite the hands of the heavy advertisers that feed them.”

Chamberlin denied that he was “cherry-picking” among published studies. “Some show harm, while others do not, and it’s somewhat dependent on who funds the research,” he said. “I just showed you what seemed to be rock-solid studies that definitely show harm with exposure.”

He also stated that Federal Communications Commission limits on radio frequency radiation set in 1996 are far too lenient. He cited a Harvard University Center for Ethics study contending that the FCC “is dominated by the industry it presumably regulates. … The industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress.”

On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC must reexamine its health and safety guidelines for 5G and other wireless-based technologies. The case was filed in early 2020 by the Environmental Health Trust.

The court ruled that the FCC’s decision in 2019 that its 1996 radio frequency emission guidelines adequately protect the public was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based. The court also found that the analysis provided by the Federal Drug Administration, on which the FCC relied for its decision, was also not evidence-based.

The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines; address the impacts of RF radiation on children; address the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation; and address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.

“To be clear, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation — we merely conclude that the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law,” the court order stated.

“I don’t want to believe my cellphone is hurting me,” Chamberlin said. “I love my cellphone and probably a lot of you do also, so people don’t want to believe the harm, but I think people are wising up.”

“This is a purely educational presentation,” Lenox Board of Health Chairwoman Dianne Romeo stated at the outset. “We won’t enter into any discussion or debate between us and we won’t offer an opinion in any way on this civic project that’s been brought forward to the town.”

The presentation can be viewed on demand at CTSB (Community Television of the Southern Berkshires) or as scheduled on Channel 1303 for Spectrum cable customers.

Clarence Fanto can be reached at cfanto@yahoo.com, on Twitter @BE_cfanto or at 413-637-2551.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/central_berkshires/lenox-wireless-safety-curtis/article_aa1b6d84-04ec-11ec-b517-97d4a38105c9.html

Epidemiological, Clinical, and Toxicological Evidence of RF-EMF on Reproduction

Speaker Spotlight
Devra Davis PhD, MPH presents:
Epidemiological, Clinical, and Toxicological Evidence
of RF-EMF on Reproduction

included in the Online CME/CE Course

Current exposures from wireless radiation from cell phones, laptops, Wi-Fi and other wireless transmitting devices can contribute to infertility. From currently available studies, it is clear that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) increase reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen species that can weaken membranes, increase genomic instability and genotoxicity, and oxidative stress, disrupt cell repair and have deleterious effects on sperm parameters (like sperm count, morphology, motility), along with female reproductive health.
   
Dr. Davis PhD, MPH and Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, is the author of more than 220 scientific publications, editor of multiple monographs, author of 3 popular, award-winning books and is the Founding President of the Environmental Health Trust (EHT). EHT held a press conference Monday, August 16, 2021 on the historic federal court victory decision on the lawsuit – EHT Et. Al. vs FCC, announced August 13. You can watch this press conference here.

Dr. Davis has engaged in advocating for greater health protection from EMFs and other environmental toxins for decades. Her tireless and exemplary leadership, as a scientist and as a public health expert, has been influential in raising awareness among public policy makers and the public, about the harmful effects of EMFs and chemicals on human health and the environment. She served as Founding Executive Director, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; and, as a U.S. Senate-confirmed presidential appointee in public health. Read her complete bio and abstract here. EXTENDED!  50% DISCOUNT on EMF Medical Online Courses & Conference Videos

Online Conference Course 20 hours CME/CE $199
Online Pre-Conference Course 4 hours CME/CE $39
Videos $79Register for the Online CME/CE CoursesThe EMF Medical Conference 2021 Online Courses are evidence-based and feature prominent experts – doctors who treat patients with an electromagnetic field (EMF) associated illness; research scientists who publish papers demonstrating how EMF causes biological and health effects, EMF assessment specialists and public policy advocates.
– Learn how to prevent, recognize, diagnose and treat EMF associated illness
– Earn up to 24.5 CME/CEs
– Study at your own pace
Subscribe to the Conference Videos today! 
30 hours of recordings of all the expert presentations and group discussions from the EMF Medical Conference 2021
Special price of $79 EXTENDED!
Show these videos online and educate others
ORDER TODAY

EC’s STOA Committee issues new report which calls for a halt to the expansion of 5G

EC’s STOA Committee issues new report which calls for a halt to the expansion of 5G
Home
 
EC’s STOA Committee issues new report which calls for a halt to the expansion of 5G
Dear colleagues doctors and scientists,
The Science and Technology Options Assessment Committee (STOA) of the European Parliament published its review
“Health impact of 5G. Current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies”
Of the evidence on the risks of 5G and non-ionising radiation in June 2021. The study calls for a halt to the expansion of 5G. This study (review) was written by a working group of the Ramazzini Institute (Bologna) led by Fiorella Belpoggi. It is a review of the state of research on 5G, both the low and higher (gigahertz) frequencies used in 5G, and is thereby also an assessment of mobile communications as a whole.
Radiation protection policy worldwide is confronted with clear results and political demands as a result of this study, the seriousness of which is beyond doubt. The results summarised:
In the synopsis of the results from epidemiology, in-vivo and in-vitro studies, there is sufficient evidence for a cancer-causing potential, especially of the frequency ranges of GSM, UMTS, LTE and 5G (450 to 6,000 Mhz) used so far, as well as for effects on fertility.
No adequate studies are available on 5G in the higher frequency range (24 to 100 GHz). Therefore, the study describes 5G as an experiment on the population.
In the assessment, the non-thermal effects must be taken into account, which has not been done so far. For this, the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is directly criticised. Their guidelines have no protective function.
The authors of the study call for a 5G expansion stop, research on the high 5G frequencies, education of the population and a focus on the expansion of fibre optic networks.

READ FULL ARTICLE AT: https://www.emfacts.com/2021/08/ecs-stoa-committee-issues-new-report-which-calls-for-a-halt-to-the-expansion-of-5g/

THIS RULING IS BULLSHIT! DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER? WHERE IS THE INVESTIGATION? CITIZENS ARE IMPACTED NEGATIVELY DAILY! HOW MUCH LONGER WILL GOV’T AGENCIES STONEWALL US? THE ILLEGAL NOISE POLLUTION WE ARE EXPOSED TO 24/7 IS UNBAREABLE AND IS A CRIME TOWARD HUMANITY.

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 25, 2021 Decided August 13, 2021
No. 20-1025
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENTS
Consolidated with 20-1138
On Petitions for Review of an Order
of the Federal Communications Commission
W. Scott McCollough argued the cause for petitioners.
With him on the joint briefs were Edward B. Myers and Robert
F. Kennedy, Jr.
Sharon Buccino was on the brief for amici curiae Natural
Resources Defense Council and Local Elected Officials in
support of petitioners.
2
Dan Kleiber and Catherine Kleiber, pro se, were on the
brief for amici curiae Dan and Catherine Kleiber in support of
peititioners.
James S. Turner was on the brief for amicus curiae
Building Biology Institute in support of petitioners.
Stephen L. Goodman was on the brief for amicus curiae
Joseph Sandri in support of petitioners.
Ashley S. Boizelle, Deputy General Counsel, Federal
Communications Commission, argued the cause for
respondents. With her on the brief were Jonathan D.
Brightbill, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the
time the brief was filed, U.S. Department of Justice, Eric
Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief
was filed, Jeffrey Beelaert and Justin Heminger, Attorneys,
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., General Counsel at the time the brief
was filed, Federal Communications Commission, Jacob M.
Lewis, Associate General Counsel, and William J. Scher and
Rachel Proctor May, Counsel. Richard K. Welch, Deputy
Associate General Counsel, entered an appearance.
Before: HENDERSON, MILLETT and WILKINS, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.
Opinion dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge
HENDERSON.
WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Environmental Health Trust and
several other groups and individuals petition for review of an
order of the Federal Communications Commission (“the
Commission”) terminating a notice of inquiry regarding the
3
adequacy of the Commission’s guidelines for exposure to
radiofrequency radiation. The notice of inquiry requested
comment on whether the Commission should initiate a
rulemaking to modify its guidelines. The Commission
concluded that no rulemaking was necessary. Petitioners argue
that the Commission violated the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act by failing to respond to
significant comments. Petitioners also argue that the National
Environmental Policy Act required the Commission to issue an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
regarding its decision to terminate its notice of inquiry.
We grant the petitions in part and remand to the
Commission. The Commission failed to provide a reasoned
explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately
protect against the harmful effects of exposure to
radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer.
I.
The Federal Communications Commission regulates
various facilities and devices that transmit radio waves and
microwaves, including cell phones and facilities for radio, TV,
and cell phone communications. 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a(a);
see EMR Network v. FCC, 391 F.3d 269, 271 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Radio waves and microwaves are forms of electromagnetic
energy that are collectively described by the term
“radiofrequency” (“RF”). Office of Eng’g & Tech., Fed.
Commc’ns Comm’n, OET Bulletin No. 56, Questions and
Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields 1 (4th ed. Aug. 1999).
The phenomenon of radio waves and microwaves moving
through space is described as “RF radiation.” Id.
We often associate the term “radiation” with the term
“radioactivity.” “Radioactivity,” however, refers only to the
4
emission of radiation with enough energy to strip electrons
from atoms. Id. at 5. That kind of radiation is called “ionizing
radiation.” Id. It can produce molecular changes and damage
biological tissue and DNA. Id. Fortunately, RF radiation is
“non-ionizing,” meaning that it is not sufficiently energetic to
strip electrons from atoms. Id. It can, however, heat certain
kinds of materials, like food in your microwave oven or, at
sufficiently high levels, human body tissue. Id. at 6–7.
Biological effects that result from the heating of body tissue by
RF energy are referred to as “thermal” effects, and are known
to be harmful. Id. Exposure to lower levels of RF radiation
might also cause other, “non-thermal” biological effects. Id. at

  1. Whether it does, and whether such effects are harmful, are
    subjects of debate. Id.
    The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and its
    implementing regulations require federal agencies to “establish
    procedures to account for the environmental effects of [their]
    proposed actions.” Am. Bird Conservancy, Inc. v. FCC, 516
    F.3d 1027, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). If an agency
    proposes a “major Federal action[]” that stands to
    “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment,”
    the agency must prepare an environmental impact statement
    (“EIS”) that examines the adverse environmental effects of the
    proposed action and potential alternatives. 42 U.S.C. §
    4332(C). Not every agency action, however, requires the
    preparation of a full EIS. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
    P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 503 (D.C. Cir. 2010). If it is
    unclear whether a proposed action will “significantly affect[]
    the quality of the human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C),
    the responsible agency may prepare a more limited
    environmental assessment (“EA”). See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a).
    An EA serves to “[b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and
    analysis for determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or a
    finding of no significant impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(c)(1).

READ FULL RULING AT: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910111.pdf

Mobile phone radiation and reproduction

Mobile phone radiation and reproduction Can mobile phone radiation interfere with the reproductive system?The results of two recent studies suggest that it can.Female reproductive systemIn one study, researchers exposed pregnant rats to mobile phone radiation and found that this resulted in changes in the reproductive system of their female offspring. The rat pups exposed in utero had less primary and secondary follicles—the sacs that contain immature eggs (oocytes). The pups also had a higher level of atresia—disintegration of eggless follicles.The less follicles a female has, the lower the opportunity for fertilisation and pregnancy.The researchers also exposed pregnant rats to mobile phone radiation while supplementing them with omega-3, an essential fatty acid. They found that supplementation counteracted the harmful effects of exposure and the female pups with the highest supplementation had a higher number of follicles than pups that had not been exposed.Calis, P et al, ‘Does Exposure of Smart Phones during Pregnancy Affect the Offspring’s Ovarian Reserve? A Rat Model Study’, Fetal Pediatr Pathol, 2021, Apr; 40(2): 142-52, doi: 10.1080/15513815.2019.1692112. Male reproductive systemIn another study, researchers exposed 30 male mice to different frequencies of mobile phone radiation for 40 minutes or 60 minutes per day then examined samples of blood and kidney and testes tissues.In blood samples, they found increased levels of leucocytes which normally occurs when fighting infection. They also found higher levels of hemoglobin which usually occurs when the body requires more oxygen.In kidney tissues, they found markers for inflammation in mice exposed to 4G mobile phone radiation.They found indicators for inflammation In testes tissues as well.Based on their results, the authors suggested that it is important that the public be advised of the potential harmful effects of mobile phone radiation.

Hasan, I et al, ‘Hematobiochemical and histopathological alterations of kidney and testis due to exposure of 4G cell phone radiation in mice’, Saudi J Biol Sci, 2021 May 28(5): 2933-2942; doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.02.028.What you can doLimit your family’s use of mobile phones.Reduce your exposure to mobile phone radiation with our airtube headsets and shielded mobile phone cases. Check out your family’s exposure to wireless radiation from your family’s digital devices with one of our wireless metersDo you have questions?Did you know you can talk to a consultant for professional advice?You can book our professional phone consultation with us hereWhat else you can doIf you found the information above of interest, please forward this email to others.If you’d like more information, you can download our latest issue of EMR and Health here.If you’ve been sent this message by a friend and would like to subscribe to future updates, you can do that here.

Warm regards

Lyn McLean
Director
EMR Australia PL
www.emraustralia.com.au
02 9576 1772

In Historic Decision, Federal Court Orders FCC to Explain Why It Ignored Scientific Evidence Showing Harm From Wireless RadiationUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges in favor of environmental health groups and petitioners; finds FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to respond to comments on environmental harm.

Webinar logo


In Historic Decision, Federal Court Orders FCC to Explain Why It Ignored Scientific Evidence Showing Harm From Wireless RadiationUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges in favor of environmental health groups and petitioners; finds FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to respond to comments on environmental harm.
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”  
The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” 
“We are delighted that the court upheld the rule of law and found that the FCC must provide a reasoned record of review for the thousands of pages of scientific evidence submitted by Environmental Health Trust and many other expert authorities in this precedent setting case. No agency is above the law. The American people are well served,” said Dr. Devra Davis, president of Environmental Health Trust. 
Edward B. Myers, attorney for Environmental Health Trust, the lead petitioner in the case, EHT et al. v. the FCC stated, “The court granted the petitions for review because, contrary to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its assertion that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.” “I am very pleased to see that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the FCC ignored decades of studies about the potential health harms of cell phone radiation and must adequately review this material before making a decision about new regulations of cell phones,” said Dr. Jerome Paulson, former American Academy of Pediatrics Environmental Health Council Chair and now Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics and Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences and Milken Institute School of Public Health. “It is very important that the court ruled that the FCC must address the impacts of radiofrequency radiation on the health of children amassed since 1996.” The American Academy of Pediatrics’ submission to the FCC called for a review of safety limits to protect children and pregnant women. 

In overturning the FCC determination for its lack of reasoned decision making, the court wrote that the commission cannot rely on agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if the FDA’s conclusions are provided without explanation.  
“While imitation may be the highest form of flattery, it does not meet even the low threshold of reasoned analysis required by the APA under the deferential standard of review that governs here. One agency’s unexplained adoption of an unreasoned analysis just compounds rather than vitiates the analytical void. Said another way, two wrongs do not make a right,” the court wrote. 
The court further noted that the FCC failed to respond to approximately 200 comments on the record by people who experienced illness or injury from electromagnetic radiation sickness. 
The court ordered the commission to “(i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”
Download August 13, 2021 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The landmark case centers around the FCC’s decision not to update its 1996 exposure limits for wireless radiation from cell phones, cell towers, and wireless devices. Environmental Health Trust experts have long argued that the FCC’s outdated limits place Americans everywhere at risk, especially in the era of 5G.  Read More About the Case Against the FCCIn response to the court’s historic ruling, Environmental Health Trust and petitioners released the following statements:  Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President Environmental Health Trust, author of Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It and How to Protect Your Family. 
“If cell phones were a drug they would have been banned years ago. 5G would never have been allowed to market. An ever mounting body of published studies — ignored by the FCC — clearly indicates that exposure to wireless radiation can lead to numerous health effects, especially for children. Research indicates wireless radiation increases cancer risk, damages memory, alters brain development, impacts reproductive health, and much more. Furthermore, the way the FCC measures our daily exposure to cell phone and cell tower radiation is fatally flawed and provides a false sense of security.” 
“Environmental Health Trust submitted hundreds of pages of scientific evidence to the FCC over the last several years documenting the scientific data showing harm, the need for health agencies to create safety limits that protect against biological effects, and the urgency for infrastructure policy that prioritizes wired rather wireless communications to reduce public exposure. While there is a lot of work left to do, today’s ruling is an important step in protecting people against the harms caused by wireless radiation exposure. Unfortunately, the telecom industry is now pushing millions of new 5G wireless antennas into neighborhoods and billions of new wireless devices, putting more in harm’s way everyday. 
“While we celebrate today’s victory, we must look forward. Where do we go from here? We need a congressional hearing into how this agency operated above the law to ensure it never happens again. Committing to 5G merely ensures commercial success in selling new devices and cannot bridge the digital divide where many disadvantaged groups lack access to basic technologies. As we detail in EHT’s letter to President Biden, the priority for infrastructure should be for wired rather than wireless internet connections. The U.S. needs a federal action plan on the issue of wireless radiation that should be informed by the latest science showing that current levels of radiation can damage human health and the environment.” Theodora Scarato MSW, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust and a petitioner in the case. 
“This is a win for our children, our future, and our environment. The court’s decision should be a wake-up call worldwide. There was no premarket safety testing for cell phones or wireless networks before they came on the market decades ago. As the court points out in the ruling, silence from federal health and environmental agencies does ‘not constitute a reasoned explanation for the Commission’s decision.’ This ruling highlights how there has been no scientific review of the full body of scientific research to ensure people and the environment are protected. No federal agency has reviewed science indicating impacts to the brain, reproduction, trees, or wildlife — not the Food and Drug Administration, not the Centers for Disease Control, not the National Cancer Institute, not the Environmental Protection Agency. For decades, each of these agencies has downplayed the health effects of wireless radiation on their public websites. A telecom-financed scientist drafted webpages to be put online by our federal government. When people try to stop a cell tower from being built in front of their homes, they are told by their elected leaders that they cannot consider the issue of health effects due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This has to stop.
“We need an investigation of how our country ended up in this situation and a federal action plan to ensure it never happens again. It is imperative that our federal agencies immediately act to protect human health and the environment.”  
Statement by Cindy Franklin of Consumers for Safe Phones, an organization that was a petitioner in the case.
“The FCC must now admit that its 25-year-old exposure guidelines are bogus. Our federal regulatory agencies are mandated to protect people and the environment from the known biological harm from exposure to microwave radiofrequency radiation. This ruling shows they have failed to do their jobs. The wireless industry can no longer hide behind the FCC’s so-called ‘safe’ exposure guidelines.”
Statement of Liz Barris of The People’s Initiative Foundation.“This day is a long time coming! So many people are suffering from the effects of wireless radiation and SO MANY are not even connecting their symptoms, illnesses, cancers, and even deaths to the radiation that is causing it because they trust and believe their government! The FCC failed to respond to ANY of the documentation submitted to them that people are being injured by ALL types of wireless radiation, from cell phones and Wi-Fi to smart meters and cell towers. We need limits, backed by science, that do not harm people or our environment and thus far, the science shows that the only safe wireless radiation is no wireless radiation. Hard wired ethernet connections with plugin portals everywhere for cell phones and internet may be our best bet.”
About the CaseIn EHT et al. v. the FCC, petitioners argued that the FCC ignored thousands of pages of research and expert testimony showing harmful effects from wireless radiofrequency radiation to humans, wildlife, and the environment when it decided that the 1996 wireless radiation limits did not need to be updated with a full health and safety review.   Environmental Health Trust filed its case in the Court of Appeals with Consumers for Safe Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato, MSW. They were represented by attorney Edward B. Myers. 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. Children’s Health Defense was represented by attorney Scott McCullough and Robert Kennedy Jr. Evidentiary briefs were jointly filed. Scott McCullough represented Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense, and petitioners in the oral arguments.
Oral arguments were held January 25, 2021, before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit including Hons. Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins. 
Environmental Health Trust attorney Edward B. Myers previously intervened in the successful case of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes against the FCC. In this earlier case, the court upheld the relevance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the EHT et al., v FCC case as well. 
The FCC is represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis, and Richard Kiser Welch.  Read More About the LawsuitYour Support Brought Us to Victory