The Plot Thickens

During the Planning Board review of Verizon's plan to install wireless communications antennas on Providence Hall, members of the Planning Board and members of the public were repeatedly warned, by attorneys for Verizon and counsel to the Planning Board, that the review of the proposal could not consider health risks presented by the antennas. The standards were set by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and Verizon's only obligation was to meet those standards.

Nevertheless, many of the comments from the public had to do with health concerns, particularly the potential use of 5G technology at the site. The resolution approving the project included the condition that the site could not be upgraded from 4G to 5G without Planning Board approval. That condition is one of several reasons Verizon has filed a lawsuit against the City of Hudson, the Planning Board, and the Code Enforcement Office.    

For several months during the Planning Board's extended review of the Verizon project, a landmark lawsuit was being argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This lawsuit, brought against the FCC by Children's Health Defense (CHD) and the Environmental Health Trust, challenged "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." 

Last week, a ruling was made in the case. Gossips' first information about the ruling comes from The Defender, a publication of CHD, which reports:

On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC's 2019 decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.

In 2019, after an alleged six-year review of the science on the potential harms of 5G and wireless technology, the FCC concluded the evidence showed no harm and therefore its 1996 guidelines are sufficient to protect the public and no review of the guidelines was warranted. . . .

CHD's case revealed that while the FCC has been pushing 5G and forcing Wi-Fi-based technologies on our children, the safety assurances made by the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are not supported by evidence. As the court's ruling indicates, the contrary is true.

The entire statement from CHD can be read here. 

COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK