Defender experienced censorship on many social channels. Be sure to keep in touch with news that matters subscribe to our top news of the day. It’s free.
On June 23, Protecting the Health of Children (CHD) submitted the opening speech in its case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that “Over-the-Air Rection Devices ”(OTARD) Rule Change, which began March 29. This submission is the main brief for CHD in its case filed on Feb. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
CHD will hold an information and Q&A session about the mubu this Wednesday, June 30 at 11:30 pm PT / 2:30 pm ET. Register here.
CHD is opposed the OTARD rule change, which allows fixed wireless companies to contract with private property owners, including homeowners, to install point-to-point antennas on their property. The rule also allows wireless companies to add privately owned base station branded antenna installations to maximize wireless voice / video / data service, including 5G and Internet-of-Things antennas, in users in many areas.
The revised rule, which aims to facilitate the rapid deployment of wireless networks, selects all state and local zoning laws that may apply. No application, permit or notice of neighboring properties is required. Homeowners ’reporting and work restrictions were also made preliminary.
“The rule effectively transforms residential areas into industrialized zones saturated with radiation and creates a wireless‘ Wild West, ’” explains Dafna Tachover, a lawyer and director of The 5G and Wireless Harms Project at CHD who spearheaded CHD’s campaign against law change.
One of the more technical arguments used in the short section of CHD is that the rule change makes wireless carriers unmanaged, and therefore the rule change is contrary to the licensing regime. and provide / user / use by Congress.
Many towns, organizations and individuals formally opposed of the OTARD rule by public comment before it takes effect. To comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the FCC must address these objections and issue a reasonable judgment. The brief CHD argued that the FCC violated the APA by failing to address the concerns raised and by providing substantial and sufficient policy reasons to justify these priorities.
Consistent with its mission, the focus case of CHD is the effects of the changed rule on children and adult sufferers. radiation sickness, or whose circumstances are exacerbated by wireless radiation exposure, such as those suffering from seizures, ADHD, and immune or neurodevelopmental conditions.
The rule change promotes federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled and their rights to housing and allows unscrupulous exposure to wireless radiation to force people into their houses that can be hurt by it, and when it can even be deadly. Because notice is not required, those who are ill from wireless radiation may learn about placing an antenna on neighboring property through illness. They can still experience life -threatening symptoms. For these people, their shelter was their only refuge, but the change in the rule made even their own homes unsafe and inaccessible to them, and deprived them of all rights to to be expected.
The brief has three expert opinions of Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D; Professor Riina Bray, medical director at Women’s College Hospital, a hospital clinic specializing in the diagnosis of radiation sickness; and Toril Jelter, a pediatrician in California.
Radiation disease, although largely unknown, is widespread. Surveys show that an average of 10% of people suffer from this condition to some degree. CHD’s Letter of April 2020 the FCC is another indication of the magnitude of the problem. The submission was attended by 15,090 people, 6,231to whom they and / or their children have been declared ill from wireless radiation. The brief reference to CHD is a collection of 246 comments there are stories of illness and / or death from wireless radiation.
CHD, along with four individual petitioners in the case (all of whom have ill themselves from radiation or have children or a sick spouse), argued that the FCC failed to respond to “irrelevant evidence that the alteration that would directly result in serious injury to those uniquely or specifically injured by it, “and their exposure to such radiation may be considered” torture. “
Violation of their rights to due process is the central controversy. CHD’s brief account of the FCC rule amendment “gives a line of color to the law” on violations of procedures and many of the rights provided for by other federal, state or local laws, including American with Disability Law / Equal Housing and state equivalents. It is argued that the FCC’s selections are inconsistent with the policy behind these laws.
Scott McCollough, lead CHD attorney for the case, used strong language to describe the FCC’s actions in relation to the injured. He writes that the Communications Community that gives the FCC administrative authority “does not give the FCC the right to punish innocent people without any due process,” and argues that the FCC’s preference for negligence is an “administrative absolutism irrelevant to our law. -create traditions. ”
Every home in the U.S. now has access to a class of broadband Internet that costs almost $ 60 a month and does nothing to harm others. The irrelevant advantage offered by amending OTARD to users is even more optional. As a result, CHD’s brief argument fails the FCC to explain why these core American traditions should be removed from the name of any and more deploying.
Consistent with the brief, the amended violation of the constitutional rights rule includes the violation of personal rights and freedoms obtained in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments and others. rights recognized by the Supreme Court as fundamental, and therefore also protected. These include: the rights to “life,” “property” and “liberty,” along with “bodily integrity” and privacy -related rights.
CHD submission is accompanied by a real-life example of the effects of rule change. The affidavit of Dr. David Hoffman was charged with brief CHD. The affidavit provides photographs of an extensive base station antenna structure placed behind her parents ’neighbors.
This antenna is allowed to change the OTARD rule. Since laying, her parents have suffered from various health issues and her daughter, who suffers from radiation sickness, can no longer visit them. She develops symptoms every time she visits her grandfather.
Hoffman, in exchange for allowing the installation of antennas, which included four high-power transmitting antennas (as seen in the image above) that transmit more than a 3-5 kilometer radius, the neighbors receive free internet service. Because of OTARD’s revised rule, Hoffman and his parents could do nothing about glaring at it other than ask their neighbor to terminate his agreement with the company, which the neighbor rejected.
Under the new rule, the Hoffman family cannot sue the neighbor or the company for nuisance or for any other health-related injury. Nor can they file a lawsuit for housing in need. The new amendment removes all their rights.
Consistent with the brief CHD, the new OTARD rule brings many policy, legal and practical difficulties not considered by the FCC. The mubu says: “The commission got a gold star for the invention. But it failed to ‘think it through’ part.”
However, with regard to eliminating the rights of those injured by this radiation and considered an “obstacle” for the FCC’s deployment, CHD acknowledged that the FCC’s actions were “purposeful, known, calculated and intentionally. ”
At the end of affidavit for CHD, Tachover wrote:
“By changing this rule, the FCC is hurting the most vulnerable and taking away their right to exist, even in their home. The effects of changing the FCC rule are severe, and moral and legal. that nothing can be done. ”
He concludes by quoting Gandhi: “The true measure of any society is to be found in how it treats the most vulnerable members.”
CHD asked the court to abandon the rule.
The petitioners filed a motion requesting oral arguments in the case. The FCC brief is set for Aug. 23 and the CHD may respond to the FCC brief on Sept. 14. A three-judge panel will be appointed to the case after the end of the briefing period.