The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sent the FCC’s 2019 effort on its radiofrequency (RF) emission guidelines back to the agency on Friday for further work. Under previous Chairman Ajit Pai, the Commission mostly chose to stick with the previous guidelines, saying they remain adequate to protect the public from harmful radiation, especially concerning cell phone use.
Both wireless safety advocates and a wireless industry group claimed the decision as a victory, though for different reasons.
In response to a petition from health groups, the court ruled the FCC “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.” Those impacts, as defined by the plaintiffs such as the non-profit Children’s Health Defense, include “radiation sickness, [as well as] adverse effects on sleep, memory, learning, perception, motor abilities, prenatal and reproductive health, and children’s health.”
The court asked the FCC to “provide a reasoned explanation,” as well as address the effects of such radiation on children and the environment.
Wireless communications industry trade lobby CTIA said the court did find that the Commission adequately explained its conclusion that such radiation at levels under the FCC’s limit do not cause cancer. In a statement, the group said the decision “expressly upholds the FCC’s determination that mobile phones and networks do not cause cancer.”
“With respect to other claims,” stated CTIA, “the opinion ‘take[s] no position,’ and simply directs the FCC to more fully explain its conclusions. The consensus of the international scientific community is that radiofrequency energy from wireless devices and networks, including 5G, has not been shown to cause health problems,” notes CTIA.
“The evidence includes thousands of peer-reviewed studies conducted over decades and includes input from expert organizations such as the FDA, World Health Organization and American Cancer Society,” states CTIA. It says: “The court’s opinion does not dispute these conclusions.”
In a statement, Advocacy group Environmental Health Trust, the lead petitioner, emphasized the court’s determination that said the FCC was “arbitrary and capricious” when it came to its decision on those non-cancer health effects.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman and Chief Legal Council, Children’s Health Defense, another health advocacy group involved in the case, said in a press conference yesterday, the decision means the issue of people getting sick from WiFi “will get some attention.” Kennedy said the Food and Drug Administration and the FCC have become “sock puppets for industry.”
CHD attorney Scott McCollough said the FCC has 45 days to decide how to proceed. According to the court, the FCC will have a chance to provide the judges with “a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation unrelated to cancer.”
By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief
Reader Interactions