"I am inclined to rule against you" stated Judge Robert L. Wilkins to the FCC.
We had our day in court. The truth was on our side and the federal judges asked excellent questions indicating that they read the scientific and policy evidence that EHT has submitted to the FCC over the last decade much of which is now being used as key evidence in this historic case.
Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC is an historic case aimed at getting the FCC to reconsider, revise, and update its 24-year old exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cellphones, cell towers, Wi-Fi networks, smart meters, and other wireless communication devices and facilities. Briefs were filed jointly with Children's Health Defense.
"I’m just going to be very upfront with why I am inclined to rule against you," stated Honorable Judge Robert L. Wilkins (a chemical engineer by training) in his questions to FCC counsel Ashley S. Boizelle as he questioned the process by which the FCC and FDA had determined safety.
"And so I’m just trying to understand how the FDA coming back and talking about cellphones that are in a holster—where nobody keeps them anymore" stated Judge Patricia Ann Millet in her questioning of the FCC on how the 1996 FCC limits can apply to 2021 technology.
EHT et al. v. FCC Key Resources