One blue sky above us,
One ocean lapping all our shores,
One earth so green and round,
Who could ask for more?- Pete Seeger
In 2018, on land and in space, preparations to deploy millions of antennas were very publicly being made and advertised, for “5G,” “Smart Cities,” and the “Internet of Things.” At the same time, and without any publicity, governments, research laboratories, and commercial and military interests were collaborating on plans to create “Smart Oceans” and the “Internet of Underwater Things” (IoUT). They did not consult the fishes, whales, dolphins, octopuses, and other inhabitants of those depths.
In the United States, the National Science Foundation funded what it called the SEANet Project. The goal was to enable broadband wireless communication from any point on or in the oceans to anywhere else on the planet or in space. The Internet of Underwater Things is being designed to enable all the same communicationcapabilities that are being provided on land, including “real-time video streamingfrom underwater.”
In the last three years, a flood of papers have been published by scientists and engineers in the U.S., China, Pakistan, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Greece,
Italy, France, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. In 2020, the IEEE Internet of Things Journal published a Special Issue on Internet of Things for Smart Ocean. In 2019, the journal Sensors published a Special Issue on Smart Ocean: Emerging Research Advances, Prospects and Challenges, and the same journal is now publishing another Special Issue on Internet of Underwater Things.
Some of the activities that supposedly “need” this technology in the oceans are:
- climate change monitoring
- pollution control and tracking
- disaster prevention including tsunami warning systems
- ocean exploration
- fishing and aquaculture
- coral reef harvesting
- tectonic plate monitoring
- global oceanic trade
- oil and gas exploration and production
- military communication and surveillanceThe infrastructure that is beginning to be deployed, throughout the oceans, includes:
- sensors and antennas (“nodes”) on the ocean floor
- nodes at different depths
- surface nodes
- relay antennas at different depths to transmit data vertically from theocean floor to the ocean surface, and horizontally between nodes
- Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)
- Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASVs)
- underwater robots
- wireless surface buoys
- smart boats and ships
- smart submarines
- smart shores
Communication being more difficult to accomplish underwater than through the air, and more subject to interference, several different types of communication media are being used in the oceans to send data at different speeds and over different distances. Acoustic waves, radio waves, lasers, LED light, and magnetic induction are all being used to flood the oceans with data. An underwater GPS system is being developed. Most of these media work only for short- to medium-range communication. Long-range communication relies on acoustic waves, and is similar to the technology used in ocean sonar.
These technologies are already being marketed commercially and installed in theworld’s oceans today. At the 2022 Oceanology International conference, which willbe held in London from March 15 to 17, dozens of these companies will be exhibiting their products.
WaterLinked sells underwater sensor technology through distributors around theworld for use in aquaculture, and in underwater navigation. “Our Wireless SenseTMtechnology enables reliable wireless communication and innovative subsea sensorsolutions,” says their website.
EvoLogics sells underwater acoustic modems, both mid-range and long-range, that“provide full-duplex digital communication.”
SonarDyne International sells underwater acoustic modems to the oil and gas industry and to governments and navies.
Voyis sells short- and long-range underwater laser scanners.
GeoSpectrum sells “integrated, end-to-end acoustic systems” for oil and gasexploration and for military purposes.
Dynautics sells autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).Seaber sells “off-the-shelf micro-AUVs.”
Hydromea markets “the first ever tether-less underwater drone.”
Mediterraneo Señales Maritimas sells “data buoys that integrate sensors throughour datalogger so the data can be transmitted to a remote station and displayed onour software.”
3D at Depth, Inc. “provides advanced subsea LIDAR laser systems.”
Teledyne Marine sells Autonomous Underwater Gliders, Autonomous UnderwaterVehicles (“unmanned robot submarines”) and “laser systems for both shallow anddeep-sea submerged diving.”
“Underwater robots swarm the ocean,” says a page on the website of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The Institute has developed an acoustic-based navigation system that is enabling large numbers of underwater robots to work together. “Instead of using just a single, larger and more expensive underwater robot to cover an area of the ocean, we want to have hundreds or even thousands of smaller, lower-cost robots that can all work in sync,” says their webpage.
Ocean protection organizations have long been campaigning against noise pollution in the oceans, but they are only beginning to be aware of this new type of assault, which has the potential to dwarf all previous noise assaults in its scope and magnitude. For example, one of the campaigns of the environmental organization,Sea Shepherd, is “Silencing the Deafening Roar of Ocean Noise Pollution.” They write:
“In 1953, Jacques Cousteau published a classic memoir on his early days of underwater exploration. He titled this book The Silent World. Today, human activities make a mockery of that title. Over the past several decades, marine noise pollution has grown at an exponential rate. Noise from vessel traffic is doubling every decade. Pile-driving, dredging, sonar, and seismic exploration for oil and gas add to the cacophony. For marine wildlife, and especially for acoustically-sensitive cetaceans, this anthropogenic racket poses a grave and growing threat. Ocean noise pollution causes severe stress, behavioral changes, masking (i.e., difficulty perceiving important natural sounds), strandings, and noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity.”
To this mix is now being added the Internet of Underwater Things, which is beginning to flood the oceans with sound in order to connect them to the Internet. And this sound will be pulse-modulated with the same harmful frequencies as radio waves in order to carry the same data. And to communicate over large distances, some of the underwater acoustic modems that are being marketed are capable of producing sound as loud as 202 decibels. That is equivalent to 139 decibels in air. It is as loud as a jet engine at a distance of 100 feet, and is above the threshold for pain in humans. These modems blast modulated sound at frequencies ranging from 7 kHz to 170 kHz, encompassing almost the entire hearing range of dolphins, which use sound for hunting and navigating.
The effects of sonar on whales and dolphins have been widely publicized. But the effects of noise pollution on fish and other denizens of the deep are just as devastating, as Lindy Weilgart details in her 36-page report for OceanCare. She reviews 115 research studies on the effects of noise on 66 species of fish and 36 species of invertebrates.
“Most fish and invertebrates use sound for vital life functions,” she writes. “Noise impacts on development include body malformations, higher egg or immature mortality, developmental delays, delays in metamorphosing and settling, and slower growth rates… Anatomical impacts from noise involve massive internal injuries, cellular damage to statocysts and neurons, causing disorientation and even death, and hearing loss… Behaviorally, animals showed alarm responses, increased aggression, hiding, and flight reactions; and decreased anti-predator defense, nest digging, nest care, courtship calls, spawning, egg clutches, and feeding… Some commercial catches dropped by up to 80% due to noise, with larger fish leaving the area.”
If the new assault continues, it will provide the last nails in the coffins of our oceans, and — since the oceans are the source of all life — of our planet. Already in 1970, just 17 years after he published The Silent World, Jacques Cousteau, returning from 31⁄2years of exploration in which he traveled 155,000 miles, told the world: “The oceans are dying. The pollution is general.”
“People don’t realize that all pollution goes to the seas,” said Cousteau. “The earth isless polluted. It is washed by the rain which carries everything into the oceans wherelife has diminished by 40 per cent in 20 years. Fish disappear. Flora too.” And what was not being poisoned was being mined for food as though ocean life was an inexhaustible resource. “The oceans are being scraped,” he said. “Eggs and larvae are disappearing. In the past, the sea renewed itself. It was a complete cycle. But this balance was upset with the appearance of industrial civilization. Shrimps are being chased from their holes by electric shocks. Lobsters are being sought in impossible places. Coral itself is disappearing. Even in the Indian Ocean, which is little traveled.”
Life in the oceans today is hanging by a thread. If the rate of population declines continues, there will be no almost fish left in the oceans by 2048.1 The oceans are absorbing 24 million tons of carbon dioxide every day, are 26% more acidic than before we began burning fossil fuels,2 and have absorbed 93% of the heat generated by greenhouse gases since the 1970s.3 The damage already done to coral reefs by acidification, rising temperatures, and bottom trawling would take 100,000 years for nature to repair.4 Diatoms — a type of algae at the base of the ocean’s food chainthat is also the source of a third of the world’s oxygen production — have been declining by more than 1% per year for two decades.5 Populations of krill — the small shrimplike crustaceans that make up a large portion of the diet of many species of whales, penguins and seals — have declined by 80% since the 1970s.6 And the deepest layers of the oceans are severely depleted of oxygen — so much so that deep-diving fish no longer dive deep but remain near the surface in order to breathe. And populations of fishes that live in the deep sea are drastically declining. Warming oceans can no longer hold as much oxygen, and it is the deepest waters that are depleted of oxygen first.7,8,9,10 Large numbers of bottom-dwelling crabs have suffocated off the coast of Oregon.11 More than a thousand manatees died of starvation in 2021 off the coast of Florida because the seagrass they eat has been killed by pollution.12 And there is so much plastic throughout the oceans13 that sardines sold in an Australian fish market contain 3 milligrams of plastic in every gram of their tissue.14
Although many are the assaults on the oceans, and on the Earth, the single most urgent assault, which is destroying the planet the quickest, is wireless technology. It is the most destructive itself, and it speeds up and coordinates all the other assaults. And driving all of wireless technology, including wireless technology on land, in space, and in the oceans, is the cell phone. All of wireless technology, from 2G to 5G to the Internet of Things to the Internet of Underwater Things, requires everyone to be holding a cell phone in their hands. It is the director, it is the target, and without it, the present rate of destruction could not continue.
As Hillel said two thousand years ago, “If not now, when? If not me, who?”____________________
Source article from Cellphonetaskforce.org
- Newest data from the New Hampshire legislative commission confirms wireless technology produces significant negative effect on humans, animals, insects and plants
- In the race for hyperfast internet speed and connectivity, experts are making comparisons between the release of 5G and the lies told by the tobacco and oil industries
- The structure required to support 5G will place cell antenna ports close to your home and workplace, making it nearly impossible to avoid and raising your risk of excessive oxidative stress that may lead to anxiety, depression and Alzheimer’s
- It is important to get involved in helping to prevent implementation of 5G by contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions. Consider taking steps in your home to reduce exposure
Flying under the radar, so to speak, during the media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, is the rollout of a hyperfast speed 5G wireless network. As millions of Americans are suddenly working remotely, it has proven to be a powerful opportunity for regulators to move 5G forward. Yet, in the face of expanding wireless connections, a landmark study recommends reducing exposure.
Despite concern by many experts, the implementation is moving forward under the guise of bringing a faster and more efficient internet, at any cost. The term 5G stands for the fifth generation of wireless access, which Jonathon Adelstein, head of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, characterizes as “4G on steroids.”1 The association represents nearly 200 companies in the telecommunications industry.2
However, Adelstein’s characterization of 4G on steroids is not quite accurate. While the 4G network uses under 6 gigahertz (GHz) on the radio frequency spectrum, 5G will occupy from 30 GHz to 300 GHz, which are shorter millimeter wavelengths.3 The health effects of consistent exposure to pulses of these wavelengths have not been thoroughly studied, but the initial evidence shows it is likely dangerous.
If faster speed and reliability are truly the end goals, then fiber optic connections are a far better and safer way forward. It’s not the faster speeds of 5G that are of concern to scientists but, rather, the distribution of wireless data when in most cases it could be routed more easily and less expensively over fiber optic cables.
Newest Data Confirms Past Evidence
Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed.4 The commission was engaged to “study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”5
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions, including:6
- Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
- Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology
- Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries
- Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen
- Why, when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation, nothing has been done
The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote:7
“There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized.”
Their first recommendation was “an independent review of the current RF standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum” to assess the health risks that were linked to cellular communications.8
The remaining recommendations included those that would reduce an individual’s exposure to the 5G network and increase the public’s knowledge and awareness of their exposure.
Included was a shorter minority report written by the business and industry representative and the telecommunications representative, who were not in agreement with the majority of experts. The EMF Safety Network wrote, “This minority report parrots the language of the telecommunications industry and exposes their agenda to ignore science and continue to confuse the public.”9
Safety Is Taking A Backseat To Speed
In much the same way the tobacco industry convinced the public that smoking was not dangerous, so is the telecommunications industry selling the public on speed over safety. In the interview above with Greater Earth Media, IT professional Jon Humphrey made the glaringly obvious comparison between the actions of telecommunication, tobacco and leaded gas industries, saying:10
“So, they know the technology is dangerous and that’s why they’re just trying to get as much of it out there as they can before they’re finally held accountable. Sadly, we’ve seen this all before.
We saw it with big tobacco, we saw it with leaded gas and in every single case the big corporations did what they always do — they lied and then they paid off politicians and they paid scientists and they silenced people and discredited them and sadly they did get away with a lot of it and that’s what we need to make sure doesn’t happen with 5G.”
The promise is that speeds will be from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G running primarily on millimeter-wave (MMW) bandwidth. According to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell, the signals will likely be weaker since the wavelengths do not penetrate buildings and tend to be incorporated into rain and plants. To adjust, the 5G network will use:11
“… smaller cell stations (and the technology of beamforming) that’ll scramble/unscramble and redirect packets of data on a no-interference path back to us. This could mean wireless antennas on every lamp post, utility pole, home and business throughout entire neighborhoods, towns and cities.”
This requires a new infrastructure mounting 5G cell stations on existing structures, such as utility poles. During U.S. Senate hearings on the topic, when asked about the safety studies on these small cell stations, representatives from the industry stated they were not aware if any such studies existed.12
This led Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to say, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here.” An article published in Scientific American by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., director for the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, identified another challenge:13
“5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.”
How is 5G Different From 4G?
One of the significant problems with the technology is that it relies primarily on MMW, which is known to penetrate human tissue up to 2 millimeters, where it is absorbed by the surface of the cornea and is conducted by sweat glands within the skin.14 Each of these factors leads to an association with a number of potential health problems.
For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is using MMW in crowd control weapons called the Active Denial System because it produces a severe burning sensation. The DOD writes, “The Active Denial System generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam.”15
MMW is also known to suppress your immune function16 and increase cellular stress, harmful free radicals, learning deficits17 and, potentially, bacterial antibiotic resistance.18 There is nothing to suggest that 5G will produce less harm than the current technology, and there are thousands of studies demonstrating the harmful effects from that.
Research by Martin Pall, Ph.D., details how excessive oxidative stress triggered by microwave exposure from wireless technology can lead to reproductive harm and neurological disorders, such as anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s.19
Without the Choice to Opt-Out, What Can You Do?
Once it’s installed in your neighborhood, you won’t have a choice to opt out of 5G exposure. “5G will be virtually everywhere, with the options of being able to simply “get away from it” being very limited as millions of small cell devices are rolled out,” Humphrey says.20
There’s no doubt in my mind that microwave radiation from wireless technologies is a significant health hazard that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health. Unfortunately, the rollout of 5G will make remedial action difficult, which is why we all need to get involved and do what we can to prevent it in the first place, such as contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions.
Below are several suggestions to help reduce your exposure and mitigate the damage from wireless technology. In addition, you can download a free chapter from my book, “EMF*D,” that summarizes many of the major recommendations. This is handy to keep on your desktop as a reference as you’re making changes in your home.
Source article from Transcend.org
(Natural News) The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has published a new study warning about the dangers of 5G technology, including how it directly contributes to the symptoms commonly associated with the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
For the study, Beverly Rubik and Robert R. Brown referenced an earlier paper published in May 2020 that showed a “statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radio-frequency radiation and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world.”
They also highlighted a U.S.-based study showing that areas of the country with 5G infrastructure already in place and operating showed significantly higher rates of serious illness and death attributed to covid, all independent of population density, air quality and latitude.
Only 5G matched three different causal analyses used in the study. Population density, air quality and latitude, meanwhile, only matched one or two analyses each, meaning 5G was the verified culprit in negative covid outcomes.
Rubik and Brown used these findings to draw a comparison between the bioeffects of WCR (wireless communications radiation), including 5G, and the symptoms commonly attributed to covid, which they then used to create a list of overlapping physical effects.
“Symptoms from both WCR and COVID-19 included blood changes such as short-term rouleaux (blood ‘clumping’), and long-term reduced hemoglobin (in severe COVID-19 cases); oxidative stress and injury in tissues and organs; immune system disruption, including suppression of T-lymphocytes and elevated inflammatory biomarkers; increased intracellular calcium, which facilitates virus entry and replication; and arrhythmias (heart beat irregularities),” reported LifeSiteNews.
Wireless radiation exposure reduces levels of “master antioxidant” glutathione
One particularly disturbing finding in Rubik and Brown’s study is the observable decrease in glutathione, the body’s “master antioxidant,” upon exposure to 5G and really all wireless radiation. (RELATED: Donald Trump funneled billions of American taxpayer dollars into subsidizing a more rapid 5G rollout.)
At least two other study have found that WCR exposure correlates to greatly diminished glutathione levels, the symptoms of which just so happen to match those of the Fauci Flu.
Rubik and Brown made specific notes in their paper about how “the finding of low glutathione levels” in Chinese Virus patients “further supports oxidative stress as a component” of covid infection.
WCR is already widely recognized as a “physiological stressor” that causes detrimental health effects ranging from increased cancer risk and DNA damage to learning and memory problems.
Sure, correlation does not always mean causation, but in this case it is more than probable that WCR – and particularly the early activation in 5G in Wuhan, the epicenter of the plandemic – is directly contributing to the spread and severity of the Wuhan Virus.
“The evidence for the connection between COVID and 5G, as well as other forms of wireless communications radiation (WCR), consisted of two main findings: the statistical correlation between COVID-19 symptoms / mortality and area-specific WCR intensity, including that of 5G; and the overlap between WCR effects on the body, and COVID-19 symptoms,” LifeSiteNews further reported.
One reader commented that 5G radiation apparently “stirs up” the graphene hydroxide found in the injections, causing bleeding and clotting.
“Graphene hydroxide is a metal and is affected by 5G,” this person added. “Graphene hydroxide never leaves your system and accumulates with every shot or booster.”
Another wrote that while taking NAC (N-Acetyl L-Cysteine) is powerful, as mentioned in the article, vitamin D plays a much bigger role in protecting against covid and other respiratory ailments.
“If you are already low in vitamin D as a great many are, as soon as your body is attacked by a virus, those reserves get depleted further which then puts you in a very dangerous area,” this person added.
Source article from NaturalNews.com
Exposure to radiation from cell phones during pregnancy affects the brain development of offspring, potentially leading to hyperactivity, Yale School of Medicine researchers have determined.
The results, based on studies in mice, are published in the March 15 issue of Scientific Reports, a Nature publication.
“This is the first experimental evidence that fetal exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cellular telephones does in fact affect adult behavior,” professor and chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences.
Taylor and co-authors exposed pregnant mice to radiation from a muted and silenced cell phone positioned above the cage and placed on an active phone call for the duration of the trial. A control group of mice was kept under the same conditions but with the phone deactivated.
The team measured the brain electrical activity of adult mice that were exposed to radiation as fetuses, and conducted a battery of psychological and behavioral tests. They found that the mice that were exposed to radiation tended to be more hyperactive and had reduced memory capacity. Taylor attributed the behavioral changes to an effect during pregnancy on the development of neurons in the prefrontal cortex region of the brain.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is a developmental disorder associated with neuropathology localized primarily to the same brain region, and is characterized by inattention and hyperactivity.
“We have shown that behavioral problems in mice that resemble ADHD are caused by cell phone exposure in the womb,” said Taylor. “The rise in behavioral disorders in human children may be in part due to fetal cellular telephone irradiation exposure.”
Taylor said that further research is needed in humans to better understand the mechanisms behind these findings and to establish safe exposure limits during pregnancy. Nevertheless, he said, limiting exposure of the fetus seems warranted.
First author Tamir Aldad added that rodent pregnancies last only 19 days and offspring are born with a less-developed brain than human babies, so further research is needed to determine if the potential risks of exposure to radiation during human pregnancy are similar.
“Cell phones were used in this study to mimic potential human exposure but future research will instead use standard electromagnetic field generators to more precisely define the level of exposure,” said Aldad.
Other Yale authors on the study include Geliang Gan and Xiao-Bing Gao.
The study was funded by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, and Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Source article here
The FCC Guidelines are harming our children and enabling 5G deployment. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider EVIDENCE of 5G and wireless harm.
On August 13, 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) challenging the FCC’s decision not to review its health and safety guidelines regarding 5G and wireless technology. The court’s decision states that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation and failed to review the extensive evidence – scientific evidence and evidence of existing sickness – that was filed with the FCC.
Just because a vested organization says something is “safe” does not mean we have reason to believe them.
On February 2nd, 2020, the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed an historic case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), challenging its decision not to review its 25-year-old radio-frequency emissions (“RF”) guidelines which regulate the radiation emitted by wireless technology devices (such as cell phones and iPads) and infrastructure (cell towers, Wi-Fi and smart-meters), and to promulgate biologically and evidence-based guidelines that adequately protect public health.
In 1996, the FCC adopted guidelines which only protect consumers from adverse effects occurring at levels of radiation that cause thermal effects (temperature change in tissue), while ignoring substantial evidence of profound harms from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn’t reviewed its guidelines or the evidence since, despiteclear scientific evidence of harm and growing rates of RF-related sickness.
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office of Congress published a reportrecommending that the FCC re-assess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013 the FCC published an inquiry to decide whether the guidelines should be reviewed. It opened docket 13-84 for the public to file comments. Thousands of comments and scientific evidence by scientists, medical organizations and doctors, as well as hundreds of comments by people who have become sick from this radiation were filed in support of new rules. Nevertheless, on December 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and published its decision, affirming the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment of the comments or the evidence.
The FCC decision provided the first opportunity in 25 years to challenge the agency in court, expose its fecklessness, and give a voice to those who have been injured by the FCC’s disregard for human health. The lawsuit, called a Petition for Review, contends that the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
CHD’s lawsuit was joined by nine individual Petitioners. (Plaintiffs are referred to as petitioners in such lawsuits.) They include Professor David Carpenter MD, a world-renowned scientist and public health expert who is also the co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most comprehensive review of the science on RF effects; physicians who see the sickness caused by wireless radiation in their clinics; and a mother whose son died of a cell-phone related brain tumor.
CHD’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However it was transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit where it was joined with a similar lawsuit filed by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. The main brief and the reply brief were filed jointly by all Petitioners. CHD’s case was initiated and led by Dafna Tachover Esq. The attorneys representing CHD are Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s Chairman, and Scott McCollough, who is the lead attorney for the Case. Scott is a seasoned telecommunications and administrative law attorney
Want to know more? Check out the full story HERE