admin

By: Dafna Tachover Esq., MBA

On Dec. 8, 2021, Mark Lenzi,one of the diplomats who developed what has been referred to as the “Havana Syndrome,” filed a lawsuit against the US State Department alleging disability discrimination. 

It is the first known lawsuit to be filed by one of the diplomats who developed the condition. The now widely accepted explanation for the syndrome is an injury from pulsed radio-frequency (RF) radiation. The condition is the same as Microwave  Sickness / Electro-Sensitivity, suffered by people injured by pulsed RF from commercial wireless technology. 

Lenzi was a State Department officer. He and his wife and children began experiencing “sudden and unexplained mental and physical symptoms, including headaches, lightheadedness, nausea, nosebleeds, sleeplessness, and memory loss.” 

According to the suit, Lenzi and his wife both took the Havana Acquired Brain Injury Test (HABIT) to assess their conditions. Both demonstrated brain injury symptoms consistent with exposure to RF.

Lenzi’s lawsuit alleges that the State Department failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation in violation of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. He also claims that the State Department has retaliated against him for being vocal about the injury and for sending an unclassified email to colleagues “warning them about the potential danger to their health and safety.” According to the lawsuit, the email prompted the State Department to order him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. 

In 2018 Lenzi participated in a 60 Minutes program about the sickness suffered by the US diplomats in Cuba and China. In the program the diplomats accused the government of trying to silence the issue and ignoring their affliction. In his interview, Lenzi claimed that the cause of injury was RF.

In 2018 Prof. Beatrice Golomb MD. PhD., of the University of California School of Medicine published a peer-reviewed paper showing that the likely cause of the diplomats’ symptoms is pulsed RF exposure, and that their condition is similar to the condition suffered by many due to exposure to pulsed RF from commercial wireless technology. 

Following the growing pressure as a result of the media coverage, the State Department finally took action and tasked a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee with examining the health problems experienced by the US foreign services personnel in Cuba. The committee report, published in December 2020, came to the same conclusion that Prof. Golomb had reached: the diplomats’ problems were likely caused by exposure to pulsed RF/MW. 

Professor Golomb was invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present and discuss her findings. Nevertheless, her paper was not referenced in the report. It is unlikely a mistake. One cannot exclude the possibility that it is an effort to eliminate any association the public might make with harm from commercial wireless technology.

In the past few months diplomats stationed in Germany and Austria have also complained about similar symptoms. After reports of the sickness also occurring in Vietnam, Vice President Harris canceled a scheduled trip. 

The overwhelming evidence of adverse effects of pulsed RF from commercial wireless devices and infrastructure and growing reports of diplomats’ sickness raises the question that perhaps the diplomats’ symptoms are not a result of a directed RF attack but in fact from the embassy’s own RF equipment.

Another diplomat who has been vocal in describing the disregard, denial and abuse by the government is Mark Polymeropoulos. He is a former CIA operative who had previously been shot at several times. In an interview he explained that considering the mistreatment he has experienced because of developing this condition, he “had rather been shot.” 

The diplomats’ sickness creates a problem for the US government. If the diplomats are sick from pulsed RF, then how can the government continue to deny the sickness from wireless technology? Indeed, in a recent hearing in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the smart meter mandate, Justice Kevin M. Dougherty made the connection between the consumers’ sickness from smart meters and the “Havana syndrome.” Hopefully this case will help expose the US government fraud regarding the denial of RF harms, especially electro-sensitivity.

By Dafna Tachover, Esq. MBA

We finally arrived at the finish line of the OTARD case and we are finishing with a smile. The hearing on December 7 went well and Scott McCollough did a fantastic job arguing the case. However, it is impossible to predict the outcome. We did the best we could, we are content with our efforts and we are hopeful. The title of a Law360 article published today about the hearing expresses my opinion of it. Full text: DC Circ. Appears Skeptical Of FCC Wireless Antenna Rules.

Court’s Decision – Now we just have to wait for the Court’s decision. The DC Circuit usually issues its decisions within 6 months of the hearing. 

Join Our OTARD Webinar – I know many people have questions about  this case and its implications. Therefore, on Wednesday, December 15, at 3 pm ET, Scott McCollough and I will conduct a webinar with a Q & A session in which we’ll discuss the case and the hearing.
Register for the Webinar  Here (pre-registration is required). We thank 5G Free California for hosting this event. 

Recording of the Hearing – For those who missed the hearing, the recording is available on YouTube. The hearing starts at 30:35 and ends at 1:12:00. It is only 37 minutes and I recommend listening to it. See below links to transcripts of selections from the oral arguments:
Transcript of CHD’s Oral Arguments 
Transcript of FCC’s Oral Arguments

A Snapshot of the Hearing: 

The judges asked good questions including several regarding the increase in RF exposure, property and homeowners’ association rights and due process. It seemed they were especially concerned with aesthetics. Judge Randolph asked whether local communities would be allowed to pass regulations to prevent these antennas because “they are ugly and we don’t want them in our town?” The FCC’s attorney admitted that it would likely be considered an “unreasonable restriction” and therefore would be prohibited. 
 

The judges’ questions led the FCC to reluctantly admit that we are correct in our assertions as to the impact of the rule amendment: no notice of installation of these antennas is required;  there is no ability to object to their installation; and that essentially, the FCC considers any barrier to installation unreasonable and therefore unlawful, so indeed all state and municipal laws are preempted except for compliance with electric, building and fire codes. 

The judges, especially Judge Millet, who presided over the panel, appeared to see through the FCC’s efforts to minimize the impact this rule has. The FCC continuously argued that the only thing the rule does is to remove the “private use” restriction. McCollough explained that this alleged small change completely flips the whole purpose of the rule resulting in a massive impact. 

It felt as if the FCC’s attorney attempted to avoid answering the questions knowing the answers would not help the FCC’s case. It was quite noticeable, even to a child. In a comment on my Facebook page Amy wrote: “I had my 10-year-old son listening and he could understand what she [Judge Millet] was asking. He didn’t understand why the FCC attorney couldn’t answer.” While usually attorneys want more time to speak, not less, after yet another intense exchange with Judge Millet, the FCC attorney told the court “I am out of time, your honor.” 

Concluding his arguments, McCollough used vivid comparisons suggested to him by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to demonstrate the difference between the old and the new rule allowing “really really ugly powerful antennas”: “The difference is like the difference between a porch light to stadium lights emitting out to a mile, or the difference between TV speakers to a large rock band playing at a stadium for people who can hear it up to a mile.“

It Takes A Village

As always, it takes a village. Many people were involved and worked hard and under a lot of pressure. First and foremost – a huge thank you to Scott McCollough, who as always has done a superb job at every step of the way. To Shannon Koenig who is an essential part of our team, and to Ed Friedman for his help with editing even though it was always late and last minute. I have the utmost appreciation for our Petitioners and our Affiants and their family members for being willing to share their personal experiences and hardships. It takes a lot of courage. Thank you Dr. Elliot, Ginger, Jonathan, Angela, Dr. Hoffman, Michele, and Jennifer. Special thanks to the medical experts who filed reports:  Prof. Beatrice Golomb, Prof. Riina Bray and Dr. Toril Jelter.  Most Importantly, thank you Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the Children’s Health Defense team and their donors for enabling us to bring this case. 

Good luck!

Dafna

By: Dafna Tachover, Esq. MBA

In September 2021, Children’s Health Defense filed an amicus brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court urging the court to reject a smart meter mandate promoted by the state’s Public Utility Commission (PaPUC) and PECO, a local utility company. CHD’s amicus brief was joined by eighty organizations, 57 Doctors, and 19 Scientists. This case is important not only for PA residents as it may have nationwide implications. 

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021, the PA Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments in this case. The public can listen to the hearing live via YouTube. 

“Smart” wireless utility meters have been deployed in the U.S. for the last ten years or so, replacing the analog mechanical meters that were used to measure electric use for decades. Smart meters contain transmitting antennas that  wirelessly and continuously communicate the electric usage to the utility company.

Since the beginning of their deployment, smart meters  have been shown to be a major cause of sickness, and activist groups around the country have fought their forced installation. Utility companies and state public utility commissions have been denying the harm, claiming that these meters are safe since they comply with FCC safety regulations. Nevertheless, some companies have adopted opt-out options. 

This case concerns a 2008 Pennsylvania law, Act 129, a smart meter opt-in law which has been interpreted by the PA Public Utility Commission (PaPUC)to mandate wireless smart meters on homes, and to deny disability accommodation to those adversely affected by exposure to pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by these meters and other wireless devices. 

The case involves four  PECO consumers who claimed that they have been or will be adversely affected by wireless smart meters. After their requests to the utility company to be accommodated by allowing them to have analog meters were denied, they appealed to the PaPUC which also denied their request. They then appealed to the PA Commonwealth Court which ruled partially in their favor. All parties then appealed the Commonwealth Court decision to the PA Supreme Court (called “cross-appels), which agreed to hear the cross-appeals.  

Losing this case could have devastating implications for any smart meter opt-out program around the country. It may also adversely affect the right for disability accommodation for those who are harmed by these meters and other wireless devices. 

The briefs for PaPUC and PECO were filed with the PA Supreme Court in July 2021. The consumers’ briefs were filed on September 15, 2021 (Lewis’s brief; Harvey’s brief). Reply briefs (referred to as “second brief”) by PaPUC and PECO were filed in October and by the consumers in November (Lewis’s reply brief; Harvey’s reply brief). Others in addition to CHD filed amicus briefs in support of the consumers (McKnight; Jennings; Zimmerman). The Energy Association of Pennsylvania filed an amicus in support of the PaPUC and PECO. 

CHD’s historic win in its case against the FCC for the agency’s decision not to review its 1996 health guidelines is important for the consumers’ case. After the US Court of Appeals for the DC CIrcuit ruled in August 2021that the FCC’s decision not to review its guidelines is not evidence-based and that the agency failed to review overwhelming evidence of harm, including in regard to smart meters, these meters can no longer be regarded as safe. 

Further, CHD’s amicus brief reveals an admission of harm by the FCC for frequencies below 10 MHz. Such frequencies which are emitted by these meters enter a house’s electric wiring, thereby transforming it into a whole house antenna. The symptoms described by the FCC are similar to those described by the consumers. 

Statements which were included in CHD’s amicus provide strong support to the consumers’ claims. The amicus brief included a statement from 57 physicians who, combined, have over 3,000 patients who developed electrosensitivity from exposure to wireless radiation-emitting devices, including smart meters; a statement from 17 EMF expert scientists explaining the scientific evidence of harm; a statement by an expert engineer regarding the operation of these meters; and a statement by the Building Biology Institute. 

Until this stage of the case, all consumers were represented by the same attorney, Steve Harvey. However, for the appeal to the PA Supreme Court, two of the consumers, Laura Sunstein Murphy and Maria Povacz, decided to discontinue Mr. Harvey’s representation and engaged another attorney, Tracey Lewis, instead. 

CHD’s amicus is in alignment with the arguments made by attorney Lewis (rather than those that were made by Mr. Harvey). In this cross-appeals hearing scheduled for December 7, both attorneys for consumers (Lewis and Harvey) will be allowed time to speak in addition to the PaPUC and PECO attorneys. Each of the attorneys is allotted 15 minutes. 

The case is scheduled for the 9:30 am morning session. It is second on the Court’s roster. However, this hearing is unlikely to start before 10:30 am. According to Lewis, the Court’s first case for the day is super-charged as it involves a police shooting. Therefore the Court is expecting a large turnout and said they will take extra time to clear and sanitize the courtroom between arguments. 

By: Dafna Tachover, Esq. MBA

As part of its unwavering commitment to fastrack 5G and wireless deployment, on January 7, 2021, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US federal agency entrusted with regulating telecommunications, adopted an amendment to its  “Over The Air Reception Devices” rule (OTARD). 

The OTARD rule was never intended to regulate transmitting antennas, but via the rule amendment it is now used by the FCC to allow the installation of fixed wireless base station antennas on private property (including homes) in order to provide wireless service to other properties. 

With the adoption of this amendment, the FCC has gone further than with any previous regulation in removing “barriers for deployment” while continuing to deny and disregard the health and safety impact of wireless radiation on the public. 

The amendment provides for unprecedented and sweeping preemptions, including all state and local laws and zoning regulations such as the requirements of notice, application and permit. It preempts Homeowners Association rules and deed restrictions and civil rights laws including disability accommodation laws. The rule amendment is enabling a ‘Wireless Wild West’ and transforming neighborhoods into radiation-saturated industrial zones. 

To protect the public and the law, in February of 2021, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against the FCC. The lawsuit, known as a “Petition for Review,” was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. This week, on Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:30 am the court will hear the oral arguments in this case.

CHD’s lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of this amendment on various grounds. It claims the amended rule violates constitutional rights and common law personal and property rights, that it leads to due process violations, and that it was passed without authority and statutory jurisdiction. 

CHD main arguments were presented in its main brief filed on June 23, 2021. The FCC’s brief was filed on August 23,  and CHD’s reply brief was filed on September 15.  In October, CHD filed the compilation of evidence referenced in the case, known as the Joint Appendix. The Joint Appendix consists of 27 binders with a total of 5,000 pages. The case has attracted much public interest, and on June 30, 2021, Sixty-eight organizations representing more than 1 million people signed onto an amicus brief in support of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) lawsuit

This case is not the first challenge CHD has brought against the FCC. On August 13, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (the same court that will hear the OTARD challenge) ruled in favor of CHD in its historic case against the FCC which challenged the FCC’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines regarding 5G and wireless harms (guidelines case). The court ruled that the FCC’s decision was capricious and arbitrary, and that the agency failed to review overwhelming evidence of harm. The upshot of this decision is that while the FCC guidelines are still in effect, they cannot be considered as an assurance of safety in regard to non-cancer harms. 

One of the judges who ruled in favor of CHD in the guidelines case, the Honorable Patricia Ann Millett, is now presiding over the three-judge panel in the OTARD case. The other judges are Gregory G. Katsas and A. Raymond Randolph. 

During the oral arguments in the guidelines case, Judge Millet expressed concerns that the FCC guidelines may not be appropriate for the current wireless reality and that they do not protect against cumulative exposure. Those serious concerns are particularly relevant in regard to the effects of the OTARD deployment. 

In its decision to pass the OTARD amendment, the FCC dismissed the issues CHD had raised regarding the adverse effects the rule amendment will have by hiding behind its health guidelines. The question that arises is, considering the recent court decision, which clearly undermines these guidelines, should the FCC be allowed to enable such massive deployment and removal of all laws that aim to protect the public before the agency proves that its guidelines guarantee the health and safety of the public? 

The effects of the OTARD rule amendment are especially concerning for the many who are already aware that their injuries and sickness have been caused or aggravated by exposure to the radiation emitted by 5G and other wireless radiation-emitting sources. For them, the adoption of the OTARD amendment means no place will be safe and they will have nowhere to escape. 

The FCC is well aware of the growing reports of severe injuries from wireless, including the development of Radiation Sickness (also known as Electro-Sensitivity. But the agency continues to ignore the injured and the OTARD rule is removing all their due process rights. 

In an effort to stop the FCC from passing this devastating rule amendment and alerting  it once again to the extent of the sickness, in April 2021, CHD filed a 21-page letter with the FCC. The letter was joined by over 15,090 people, 6,231 of whom reported that they and/or their children have developed sickness from this radiation. Many included comments describing tragic stories of sickness and death. Nevertheless, the FCC ignored the letter and the evidence of injury and quoted its obsolete guidelines to deny this sickness and the rights of the injured. One of CHD’s main objectives in this case is to force the FCC to acknowledge the sickness and to protect the injured. 

CHD’s legal team who have led this case includes attorneys Dafna Tachover, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Scott McCollough. McCollough will argue the case on behalf of CHD in the December 7 hearing. The public can listen to the hearing live on YouTube. The case is scheduled for the morning session which starts at 9:30 am. However, both cases are second on the roster of the court in which they are being heard, therefore it is impossible to know the exact time the hearing will start. Most likely, it will not start before 10 am.

By Dafna Tachover Esq.

Eighty safe-tech and environmental organizations joined the amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Wednesday, Sept 15, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The brief was filed in a case challenging the PA Public Utility Commission’s (PaPUC) interpretation of a 2008 law, Act 129, to mandate smart meters and deny disability accommodation to those who are adversely affected by pulsed radio frequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless devices, including smart meters.

Smart meters

“Smart” wireless utility meters have been deployed in the US for a decade, replacing the analog mechanical meters that have been used reliably and safely for decades, with a monthly visit from the “meter reader.” They were promoted as part of the 2009 stimulus program, as an investment in energy conservation and the smart greed. Smart meters contain transmitting antennas that continuously communicate electric usage to the utility company in real time. They allow companies to “punish” users for using electricity during high demand periods and reward them for using it at less busy times. 

A decade later, there is little to no evidence to show that the meters saved any energy. Instead, ample evidence shows that consumers had to carry a rate hike to fund the ever-increasing costs of these meters. False readings given by  the meters have resulted in much higher bills for consumers; they have caused fires and violated privacy rights by selling consumers’ usage data. But by far their worst consequence is they have become a leading cause of sickness in adults and children. 

To support the claims of adverse effects from exposure to smart meters, the amici’s brief included a Statement by scientists with expert knowledge of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation effects. Cumulatively these scientists have published hundreds of studies on RF/EMF effects and reviewed thousands of others. They explain that smart meters have caused widespread sickness because of how they operate.

According to Erik Anderson, the expert engineer whose report was included with the amicus, smart meters contain transmitting antennas that wirelessly transmit the data to the utility companies. They pulse intense levels of RF radiation up to 190,000 times a day, some exceeding even FCC allowed levels. The report explains that the RF emissions from the antennas and the spikes of RF frequencies which are created by the alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) conversion process handled by the meters’ Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS) enter the house’s electric wiring, transforming the entire house into an antenna. Amici argued these meters must not be forced on those who are affected from RF exposure; and these people should be provided instead with analog meters. 

The Case

The case was filed by four consumers who are suffering adverse reactions from exposure to wireless radiation. They asked to be accommodated and were refused by PECO, the local utility company, and later by the Public Utility Commission. They appealed to PA’s  Commonwealth Court, which had ruled in Oct. 2010 that the law does not mandate smart meters. All parties appealed to the PA Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeals.

“The risk posed by this case to everyone is imminent,” says Dafna Tachover Esq., from We Are The Evidence, who has led the effort. “The court’s decision will affect not only PA residents but will have far-reaching implications nationwide. If the consumers’ and safe tech organizations’  position is rejected, there is little doubt that industry will mandate smart meters across the country.” The push by the utility companies to mandate smart meters has been growing, as these meters are part of “Smart Grid” and the “Internet of Things” network.

The Arguments

The nationwide rollout of smart meters is based on the assumption that they are safe because they comply with the FCC guidelines. The amicus brief refers to the recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruling in the Children’s Health Defense case against the FCC in which the court ruled that the FCC’s decision that its guidelines are safe is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based. Amici claims that as a result of this decision, while the guidelines are still in effect they cannot be considered an assurance of safety, and therefore the meters cannot be regarded as safe. 

CHD also revealed that the FCC has now admitted to adverse neurological responses from RF frequencies, including frequencies in the range emitted by the smart meter SMPS (2-50 KHz). The symptoms referenced by the FCC are similar to the symptoms reported by people who claim to suffer adverse effects from the smart meters, including tingling, a feeling of electric shocks, sleep and cognitive problems. 

The amicus brief also includes a statement signed by 57 physicians who jointly have over 3,000 patients adversely affected by exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure. Most of these patients suffer from electro-sensitivity (also known as radiation/microwave sickness) a condition in which people develop various symptoms, mainly neurological, as a result of exposure to this radiation. The physicians explain the effects of smart meters on their patients. 

The leading amici (besides CHD) is the Building Biology Institute (BBI) which certifies experts in mitigating EMFs. They work with doctors and patients to remediate exposures in patients’ homes. BBI President Larry Gust report explained that their experts have witnessed both the widespread sickness created by smart meters and the tremendous health improvements after these meters are removed. 

Regarding the interpretation of the 2008 law, CHD argued that the PUC’s interpretation of the law is false, claiming that the statute (which is an opt-in statute) cannot be read to contain a universal mandate, that it clearly envisions customer consent.

The brief states that “regardless of the legislature’s word choice,” the state cannot lawfully force a customer to accept a smart or digital meter when mandatory installation results in disability discrimination, exacerbates existing impairments or forces people to abandon their home” and argues that there must be an effective accommodation. 

CHD contends that neither the PUC nor the utility company can or should second-guess a treating physician’s finding of impairment and the need for RF exposure avoidance. That too, they claimed, is prohibited by disability laws. They wrote: “The impaired cannot be required to endure an interminable and expensive proceedings that requires them to meet an irrelevant and almost impossible evidentiary burden when the accommodation itself costs less than $100,” claiming that disability laws prohibit imposing this burden.

The amicus brief effort was led by attorneys Dafna Tachover, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.., Scott McCollough and the PA local counsel is Andrea Shaw.

A group of committed and concerned citizens including doctors, scientists, and engineers throughout the United Kingdom have come together to bring a lawsuit against their government for its failure to protect the health of the country’s citizens, particularly children, from 5G and wireless. The Claimants filed their lawsuit, an application for Judicial Review Proceedings, in the UK’s High Court.

The organization they have formed, Legal Action Against 5G, claims that the government has refused to acknowledge, or even study, the potential harms of 5G infrastructure and allowed and promoted its deployment unlawfully. On their website they wrote:“Our case against the UK government is that due process is not being followed, that the risks are being entirely disregarded. This is a national public health issue.”  Among other things, the group is calling for a moratorium on the rollout of 5G.

The defendants in the case are the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and the Secretary of State for Digital Culture Media and Sport. The named claimants (plaintiffs) in the case include Victoria Angell and Karen Churchill, who live or frequent areas where 5G has already been implemented and “whose health is put at risk by 5G.”

One of the UK’s most prominent barristers, Michael Mansfield QC., is leading the legal team representing the claimants. Mansfield is well known in the UK and has led many notable cases. He was named by the UK’s The Legal 500 (an organization which identifies and ranks top legal practitioners internationally) as “the king of human rights work.” He is joined in the case by Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs

The Claimants’ lawsuit asserts that the government’s actions violate the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore is in violation of section 6 of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 which makes it unlawful for a public authority to violate a right guaranteed by a convention. The claimants quote violation of Article 2 of the Convention which protects the right to life, Article 3 which prohibits torture and Article 8 which protects the right for privacy.

The lawsuit emphasises the Defendants’ failure to protect the population, especially children. It claims that the UK government has failed to consider the best interests of children when considering formulating, updating or reviewing the appropriate approach to 5G policy and risk assessment for exposed children, or at least, have failed to make this a primary consideration. 

The lawsuit also claims that the Defendants are in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s149 Equality Act 2010) because the government failed to assess the risks posed by RF radiation and consider them in its decision regarding 5G deployment when it decided to adopt the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommended guidelines. 

ICNIRP is a private organization that publishes recommendations for exposure levels to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) including for Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation which is the radiation emitted by wireless technology. ICNIRP’s recommended guidelines acknowledge only harms caused by thermal levels of RF radiation, and despite ample evidence, deny non-thermal harms. Since wireless technology emits for the most part non-thermal levels, according to ICNIRP, wireless is safe. There is a growing outcry worldwide against ICNIRP. Evidence shows that ICNIRP and its members have strong ties to the telecommunications industry and clear conflicts of interests, and therefore its guidelines are biased and false. Nevertheless, many governments, including the UK, have adopted these outmoded, unsafe levels. 

According to the lawsuit, the adoption of ICNIRP guidelines is in breach of the government’s  statutory duty under the National Health Service Act 2006. The adoption of ICNIRP guidelines is (a) [an] unlawful delegation or abdication of the statutory function to an external private organisation; and/or (b) irrationally failing to take appropriate steps under this power and/or failing to exercise a discretion in accordance with the statutory purpose. 

The Claimants allege that the Defendants have failed to take into account, and give due and proper consideration to, all the evidence, information and concerns which the claimants raised with them. The Defendants have failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for the decision not to establish a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounted the risks presented by the evidence available. 

Before initiating the court action, in May of 2020, Hackett & Dabbs issued a Letter Before Action to Public Health England. The letter included a report about the problems surrounding UK health policy regarding RF Radiation and 5G written by Prof. Tom Butler, University College Cork in Ireland. (A Letter Before Action is the first step in seeking Judicial Review in the British court system).

The Letter claims that the government has “failed to take into account the evidence showing a high risk to human health from 5G;  failed to bring about a full and independent assessment of the risks to human health; failed to put in safeguards to effectively protect the public from those risks; failed to provide effective information to the public about those risks.”

Prof. Butler’s report goes into significant detail on the inadequacy of ICNIRP’s standards, its conflicts of interest and the politics involved.  He states: “The majority of independent scientists consider… ICNIRP… as ‘captured’… heavily influenced by industry-funded researchers and industry itself.” The Italian Supreme Court in 2012 and the appellate court of Turin in 2020, reached similar conclusions.

Prof. Butler’s involvement with the issue of wireless harms became known in 2020 following his complaint to the Irish Office of the Press Ombudsman for the Press Council of Ireland. The Ombudsman decided that the New Times article “The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t written by William Broad (which was reprinted by the Irish Times as Are there any real links between wireless technology and health?), violated the truth and accuracy code of practice of the Press Council of Ireland.

The attorneys’ letter also enumerates the many harms shown to be caused by RFR, including increased risk of various cancers, DNA damage, neurodegenerative diseases, particular risks to children (including unborn children), Electroensitivity (Microwave Sickness) , and risks to plants and animals.

To redress these failings, the letter requested that the government: impose a moratorium on 5G pending research into its health risks; conduct a full assessment of the risks of the intended use of 5G; abolish the policy that 5G technology only need conform to ICNIRP’s (inadequate) standards; create new guidelines that will include safeguards to protect the public’s health; and publish information about the evidence of 5G harms and what steps the public can take to protect themselves. 

Since the submission of the letter in May 2020 the Claimants have continued to provide the government with evidence of harm. The case has become personal for the attorneys, when one of the attorneys and her assistant went to visit the home of a woman in London who had become ill after antenna masts had been installed near her property. They spent approximately two and a half hours at the property, mainly in the garden, when the assistant’s skin on her  neck and chest became red. These skin reactions have subsequently been identified as burns from antenna masts’ radiation. Since that day, the assistant has become electrosensitive and is now on an extended leave. 

As a result of this development, in Dec of 2020, the legal team wrote that in the time that passed since their letter to the government: “We have qualitatively moved from the threat of risk without proper assessment to the discovery by the claimants of actual damage being caused with every minute that goes by and a blatant failure by Government to recognize or respond to this by word or deed.”

As a result of the government ministers’ continuous disregard of the evidence presented, on March 22, 2021 the lawsuit was filed. Legal Action Against 5G keeps the public apprised of developments in the case on its website.  

While three people are named specifically in the lawsuit, Legal Action Against 5G acknowledges that their far-reaching case in essence represents everyone. “We represent all people in the United Kingdom because we have not been consulted, nor have we consented to the irradiation of our homes, our towns or our countryside… We are taking this action on behalf of citizens of the UK but also the global family.”

On April 13, Italian activists started a hunger strike to protest the intention of the Italian government to increase the permitted radiation exposure levels for the purpose of enabling 5G deployment. 

Over 100 people have joined the hunger strike including a member of the Italian Parliament. The initiative has been promoted by the Italian Stop 5G Alliance and is supported by a petition signed by over 62,000 people. 

The increase of the allowed exposure limits was introduced as part of a 40 billion euro Covid recovery plan bill and intends to increase the allowed exposure limits by 10 fold, from 6 V / m up to 61 V / m. The recovery plan also included 6 billion euros towards the deployment of 5G. 

On April 27, the Chambers of Deputies, which is the lower house of the Italian Parliament voted to approve the recovery plan bill. However, the version that was voted on had been amended and didn’t include the increase in exposure levels. On April 28 the second house of the Parliament, the Senate of the Republic, voted on the amended bill. For now, the exposure levels are not increased and the protesters who won this battle will terminate their hunger strike on 4/30.  The 6 billion euros towards 5G did pass as part of the recovery plan bill. 

The current Italian exposure levels are approximately 100 times lower than the US levels. Italy and many other countries around the world have significantly lower permitted radiation exposure levels than the US. However, these levels are still well above levels found by thousands of studies to cause adverse health effects. 

A large part of the infrastructure required for 5G relies on a massive deployment of called “small cell” antennas. The name of these antennas is misleading. While they may be smaller in size than the large cell towers, they are nevertheless very powerful because they are lower in height and because of their proximity to people’s homes and to the public rights of way, they in fact increase the exposure levels. It is likely for that reason the telecommunications industry has lobbied to increase the allowed radiation levels. The inconsistency between the industry statements that 5G small cells reduce radiation exposure while at the same time they lobbied to increase the allowed exposure levels led the environmental minister of Brussels, Belgium in 2019 to halt the deployment of 5G.

The Stop 5G movement in Italy has been at the forefront of the worldwide effort. A record 600 municipalities have passed resolutions calling to halt the deployment of 5G. 

The Italian alliance also organized a 3-day Stop 5G Telethon that took place on March 5-7, 2021 and was screened on Italy La Casa del Sole TV featuring many speakers and experts. 

The Italian courts are also the first in the world to rule that cell phones cause brain tumors. Thus far, the Italian courts have ruled in four cases that the plaintiffs’ acoustic neuroma brain tumors were caused by their cell phones. The first case was decided by the Italian Supreme Court in 2012 and most recently, in 2020, in a decision by an Italian appellate court. 

Both the Italian Supreme Court and the Appellate courts’ decisions heavily criticized the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private organization that has been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project. ICNIRP recommended health guidelines for wireless radiation exposure which essentially deny harms. Their guidelines have been adopted by many countries around the world.

These courts held that ICNIRP and its members are biased and their opinions lack credibility due to industry connections and funding. The Italian Supreme Court concluded that experts with ICNIRP affiliations “lacked credibility and authority, and as such, were essentially outside the scientific community.” An Italian Court of Appeals decision expressed even stronger opinions regarding ICNIRP and its members. The courts relied to a large extent on evidence provided by Prof. Lennart Hardell, MD PhD who is one of the world leading experts on cancer and wireless radiation. 

Italy’s renowned research institute, the Ramazzini Institute, 6 million euro study published in 2018 has shown that wireless radiation can cause cancer. 

The study confirmed the results of the US government National Toxicology Program (NTP) study that found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage. 

The Ramazzini study results are particularly relevant to 5G infrastructure because while the NTP study used levels of radiation that resemble those emitted by cell phones, the Ramazzini study used levels of radiation which are up to 6,000 times lower, which resemble levels of radiation from cell towers.

These studies are especially important because when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011 classified radio frequency radiation (the radiation emitted by cell phones and wireless technology, including 5G) as a 2B possible carcinogen, the agency explained that while there is epidemiological evidence that this radiation increases cancer risk, more animal studies were needed for a higher classification.

The Ramazzini Institute study and the NTP study provide the missing link for a classification of a “human carcinogen” (Group 1) or at least a “potential carcinogen” (Group 2A) classification.

These studies likely led to a decision by IARC in 2019 to reevaluate the classification of RF emissions. The agency stated that as a result of “new bioassay and mechanistic evidence,” re-evaluation is warranted. IARC’s decision is expected by 2024. 

A member of the Italian parliament, Sara Cunial joined the hunger strike and protested the adoption of increased exposure levels in Parliament. In her address to the Italian Parliament on April 13, she said: “Today you have once again betrayed the promise made to the Italian people to truly protect their health, favoring the government in its intent to raise the electromagnetic emissions limits…You continued to undermine the concerns of over 600 mayors who oppose the 5G experimentation. This order comes directly from ICNIRP, even though the Italian Courts found it to suffer from conflicts of interest and stated that it ignores the well-documented chronic and severe biological effects, and while IARC is reevaluating the carcinogenic effects of radio-frequencies. ” 

She accused the Minister for Technological Innovation and Digital Transition, Vittorio Colao, who used to work for Vodafone Italy, of conflict of interests. 

MP Cunial mentioned the case brought by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense that challenges the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) health guidelines. The FCC’s guidelines are similar to those recommended by ICNIRP. In this case, the FCC hides behind ICNIRP to justify its decision not to review its 1996 guidelines claiming there is no evidence of harm that warrant a change to the guidelines. To counter the FCC’s argument, the Petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm.  

In her address MP Cunial announced that she is joining the hunger strike which she explained is a civilian protest to oppose Parliament’s “wicked ways and its reliance on anti-scientific studies devoted to the sacrifice of human life.”  She concluded by saying to the members of parliament “how intolerable and outrageous are your excuses and lies.”

On April 30, the legislation will be sent to the European Parliament.

Kihei Baptist Chapel, in collaboration with Verizon, had applied for a special use permit to build a 50-foot cell tower  in a residential area in Maui, Hawaii. The cell tower was planned to be erected near the church which has pre-school on its property. They planned to hide it as a pine tree. Pastor Jay Amstrong and Debra Green have led a campaign against the planned cell tower and as the advocates wrote: “thankfully sanity prevailed.” On June 30, 2020 the mayor sent an email that the application was denied. 

Please say “Thank You” to the Pastor for doing the right thing: Email your words of gratitude to: Pastor Jay Armstrong jayarmstrong@hawaii.rr.com, or Call the Church and leave a message of appreciation: 808-875-2112

This is the email that was sent from the Mayor’s Office:

From: Mayors Office <Mayors.Office@co.maui.hi.us>
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: NEW 5G CELL TOWER FOR KIHEI!!

,

Aloha,

Verizon and the Kihei Baptist Church have withdrawn their application for a permit in this matter.

Thank you,

Brian Perry
Director of Communications
Office of the Mayor

Professor Tom Butler published another review on the science on RF radiation health effects this review is focusedd on 5G: “Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technology and the Implications for UK Policy-making.” 

Prof. Butker writes that the aim of this review is to provide a critical review of the findings on the health risks posed by 5G technologies. It also provides evidence that the processes by which policy decisions
have been made concerning the protection of public health may be significantly flawed, as the “overwhelming
body of scientific evidence appears to have been ignored by relevant government departments and agencies in
arriving at decisions about the introduction of 5G”. His conclusion is that the UK government  “failed in its duty to identify, assess, and mitigate the risks posed by RFR-based technologies” and in its duty to protect public health. 

Another article was recently published by Prof. Butler – a meta-analysis scientific review “On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Smartphone and WiFi Radio Frequency Radiation“. 

Recently, as a result of Prof. Butler complaint against New-York Times, the Irish Press ombudsman rebuked the Times for its false and misleading reports on 5G safety in violation of Ireland’s Truth and Accuracy in Journalism Standards. Children’s Health Defense submitted a case against the FCC for its failure to regulate guidelines that are protective of public health and especially children – Among the petitioners are parents of children who have been injured by cell phones, wi-fi in schools and cell towers. Read more about Children’s Health Defense v. FCC. Our brief is due in court on July 1st. 

From Margreet van den Berg from Stop5GNL

5G COURT DECISION IN THE NETHERLANDS TODAY
The Dutch State can continue the auction of 5G frequencies.

The judge: “There is difference in opinions whether 5G is safe for health. And you have to realize that a judge in an interim injunction (“kort geding”) cannot weigh the value of the different views in a scientific debate very well. I think that speaks for itself. ” (at 6 minutes into the video)

HIS CONCLUSION:

“On the basis of all the above, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE IS ACTING UNLAWFULLY by auctioning the frequencies in the intended manner. The claims aimed at preventing those auctions will therefore be rejected. “

———————————————————————————

TRANSLATED:

The future and conclusion
4.35.
There is no question that total exposure to electromagnetic fields (the sum of the use of multiple applications) in any location where people are present must remain below the limits which are intended to safeguard public health. Stop5GNL has rightly argued that at present it is not clear exactly how 5G systems and the field strengths they cause will develop.

For that reason, the Netherlands Radiocommunications Agency will continue to monitor the field strengths in various ways, the State explained. Although, according to the State, for various reasons, the exposure guidelines are not expected to be exceeded after the roll-out of 5G, the State has explicitly stated that it can and will intervene if future measurements by the Radiocommunications Agency show that the ICNIRP GUIDELINES are or will be exceeded.

In addition, the State has indicated that it will also INTERVENE IF NEW INSIGHTS SHOW that the exposure limits need to be adjusted; when it therefore appears that there are still health risks in the event of exposure to electromagnetic waves below the LIMITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY CONSIDERED SAFE .

At that time, intervention by the State will also be required and the State has stated that it will be able to do so at all times. In view of this, the roll-out of 5G is not irreversible.
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO REASON FOR INTERVENTION BY THE INTERIM INJUNCTION JUDGE.

4.36.
On the basis of all the above, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE IS ACTING UNLAWFULLY by auctioning the frequencies in the intended manner. The claims aimed at preventing those auctions will therefore be rejected. Stop5GNL, as the unsuccessful party, will be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument…

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/…/Staat-kan-doorgaan-met-de-veil…
———————————————————————-
ICNIRP

The judge trusts the conclusions of ICNIRP.
Translation:

“4.25.

Stop5GNL’s thesis that the ICNIRP guidelines are obsolete has been SUPERSEDED superseded by its update in March 2020. After all, in that update the guidelines were confirmed on the basis of current insights. Stop5GNL’s argument that ICNIRP erroneously limited its research to short-term thermal effects (warm-up damage) of electromagnetic fields is invalidated by the documentation of those guidelines.
Stop5GNL has argued that ICNIRP’s observations about possible health effects other than warming damage are a ‘paper reality’, but it follows from Appendix B of the new guidelines that the guidelines are based on scientific research into all kinds of conceivable health effects of electromagnetic fields, including non-thermal health effects. In the second part of the new guidelines, literature is dealt with thematically, per (possible) disorder.

It can be deduced from this that ICNIRP has ASSESSED ALL the (possible) effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields discussed in the literature, and not just the health risks due to warming.

THE COURT in preliminary relief proceedings CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF SCIENTISTS and has no reason to doubt that the research actually took place. ICNIRP concluded that possible health damage other than that caused by warming (also in the long term) has not been demonstrated. The fact that the limits have been set on the basis of ‘short-term, immediate health effects’ follows logically from this ICNIRP conclusion.”

——————————————————————————
FIELD STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS

4.27

Stop5GNL wrongly assumes that field strength measur