Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Landmark Lawsuit of Local Interest

Verizon is currently before the Planning Board seeking site plan approval to install wireless communications antennas on Providence Hall, 119 Columbia Street.

Scott Olson, the attorney representing Verizon, has maintained from the beginning that the Planning Board cannot consider the health risks presented by the antennas. The standards are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Verizon's only obligation is to meet those standards. But the adequacy of the standards themselves are now being called into question.

Yesterday, oral arguments were heard in a lawsuit brought by Children's Health Defense (CHD) and the Environmental Health Trust against the FCC. This morning, CHD issued a press release. The following are excerpts from that press release. Boldface and italics are as found.   
On January 25, we had oral arguments in our landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The hearing went VERY WELL.
Our case challenges the FCC's refusal to review its 25-year-old obsolete wireless "health guidelines" and adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency emissions rules that adequately protect public health from wireless devices and infrastructure, including 5G. After the hearing, we do indeed feel that we are closer than ever to FCC accountability! . . . 
The judges asked excellent questions and showed in-depth knowledge of the case. The honorable Judge Henderson, a chemical engineer by training, told the FCC: "I am inclined to rule against you," which is a rare and strong statement from a judge.
The honorable Judge Millet consistently pushed the FCC to answer why the FCC and the FDA didn't review the evidence on non-cancer effects of wireless technology; why they addressed only cell phones when there is evidence on effects from various other devices and infrastructure; and why they didn't address the cumulative effects from the chronic exposure for numerous devices. . . .
Gossips will keep following this case as it develops.


  1. From my perspective, any decision acknowledging that the technology may in fact cause harm does nothing to address the fact that telecom companies remain legally protected and are shielded from suits seeking damages for harm done. Hudson will be in a situation where it, being already on notice, is liable for damages but Verizon is not. Citizens of Hudson will then pay for Verizon services, be potentially harmed by the technology, and then liable as taxpayers for any judgments against Hudson for allowing a known to be harmful technology to be placed in a manner where the potential for harm should have been acknowledged AND could have been avoided.

    Verizon has not been open to working collaboratively to find a spot away from residences on which to build a tower housing their equipment. It would be too expensive. Harming people without creating liability is less expensive.

    According to Merriam Webster - A Sociopath is "someone who behaves in a dangerous (or violent) way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behavior

    Hopefully we are not dealing with that category of person and once a decision is made that the technology may cause harm if placed as intended so far, Scott Olson and other Verizon reps will be more open to collaborating with Hudson to find a site that works for all and keeps the residents of Providence Hall and lower Warren Street safe

  2. If the City believes the reports on the state of the case, it can ask a judge to issue an injunction pending the outcome of the case, especially if it can argue deployment might lead to irreparable harm to people. That the DC Circuit is antagonistic to the FCC is something of a truism that has been acknowledged for over 30 years and that remains fairly consistent regardless of which party controls the commission.

  3. Smart political lobbying by Verizon and ATT has promoted laws to be put on the books that are there to protect the corporations themselves rather than the common man.

    they do not want to spend the money to protect anyone -- its all about saving a few cents while those under their towers get fried by radiation.

    this is all hidden from view in small sub paragraphs of tome-like laws that obscure the
    consequences of simple science. These towers generate a lot of radiation. but they do not want the responsibility of any liability.

    Could they design a solution that would be healthier ? Perhaps, but that would take too much time and thought.

  4. If rfk jr is the beacon of science hope..then 5g towers are the least of yur problems.

  5. After investing a year meeting with Verizon representatives over their location of a cell tower it became painfully obvious they will not give an inch to appease community concerns. They are all nice young men in suits acting like lawyers.

  6. The FCC had agreed with the wireless industry that cellphones held to the ear did not expose any internal organs to radiation, based on the conclusion that the external ear and the external ear canal (the pinna) are "extremities." Citing from an article I just posted on IMBY, "the Mobile Manufacturers Forum had said, referring specifically to cell phones, a pinna is just like 'hands, wrists and limbs where there are no major organs subject to radio frequency exposure.'”

    Geez. My pinnas are right next to my brain and my eyes. I wonder where the pinnas they're talking about are.