The Children's Health Defense (CHD) brought a case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to court, and in a landmark ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC's 2019 decision that 1996 guidelines adequately protected the public from non-cancer harms due to 5G and wireless technology was 'capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.'

The ruling should concern anyone who uses wireless technology, but certainly, parents who allow their children to.

In 2019, the FCC concluded evidence showed no harm from 5G and wireless technology, and decided its 1996 guidelines were protective enough of the public and no review of the guidelines for the update was needed. They allegedly reviewed science on the potential harms for six years to come to this conclusion.

Convenient since compliance with FCC guidelines makes wireless-based technology 'safe' and no lawsuits can be filed for injuries.

The CHD said that safety assurances made by both the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were not supported by evidence, despite the FCC pushing 5G and forcing wi-fi-based technology on our children. The court ruled in the CHD's favor in this matter.

The court ruled that the FCC failed to engage in reason at the level required of a decision-making federal agency. The FCC also failed to provide an analysis of evidence that showed how it deemed the 5G and wireless technology safe.

The FDA deemed that the FCC's determination that their guidelines about safety were adequate but the court also ruled that the FDA's conclusions were not supported by diligent scientific analysis either.

In a press conference, CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that those agencies simply weren't in the interest of public health anymore. They're not much more than sock puppets, according to him, and we are all suffering for it.

The FCC claimed that its guidelines were supported by other government agencies but it turned out that the FCC's claims were exaggerated--other agencies didn't raise objections. The court disagreed and ruled that the agencies' silence was not consent nor support.

Over 1,000 comments of evidence of harm from radiation at levels below guidelines have been filed, and the court ruled that the FCC did not consider that evidence filed, nor did it address it as important evidence. The CHD showed over 11,000 pages of evidence that showed the extent of ignorance the FCC showed when it came to evidence of harm.

The court said that the FCC ignored numerous harms including: radiation sickness (electro-sensitivity), neurological effects, oxidative stress (a causal mechanism of harm), effects on sperm, and effects of prenatal exposure and blood-brain barrier damage.

The court emphasized the FCC’s failure to respond to evidence of the effects on children, especially in regard to testing procedures for cell phones. The court stated that extensive evidence was filed.

The evidence includes a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics, experts’ letters regarding the effects on children, the BioInitiative Report and many studies including a study showing that one year of cell phone use by adolescents can lead to permanent damage to memory and other brain effects.

Scott McCollough was the lead attorney for CHD and said that now, for the first time, the FCC will have to re-examine and responsibly confront scientific and medical evidence that shows current guidelines just don't adequately protect health and the environment.

Aulterra or Omnia neutralizers for the world!