"I am inclined to rule against you," stated Judge Robert L. Wilkins to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In case you missed it, the Environmental Health Trust had its 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 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 25-year-old exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones, 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," said Honorable Judge Robert L. Wilkins (a chemical engineer by training) during his questioning of FCC counsel Ashley S. Boizelle regarding the process the FCC and Food & Drug Administration (FDA) used to determine safety. "The problem that I have is that you say you're relying on the expertise of the FDA but the entity that Congress specifically said to review this, this (radiofrequency interagency working group), you've given us no evidence that this committee has looked at any of this."
"So I’m just trying to understand how the FDA coming back and talking about cell phones that are in a holster — where nobody keeps them anymore — or in a purse when they’re not being used is at all … and looking only at cancer is at all relevant to an inquiry, again, into the effect of this radiation frequency from multiple devices that are used in entirely different ways now," said Judge Patricia Ann Millet in her questioning of how 1996 limits apply to 2021 technology.
EHT et al. v. FCC Key Resources