Following is the Newsletter of NATOA – the Nationally Recognized Local Government Association. They discuss the impact of the FCC Sept 26 vote to limit the power of local municipalities to regulate 5G. As a result, NATOA will hold a Webminar on Oct. 10 “A Review of the FCC’s Actions to Preempt Local Authority”. Those who are actively fighting 5G on the local level, may want to register to the Webminar to learn and understand the issue faced by municipalities, their point of view and to use this information to find common grounds to collaborate.
A new court decision from France, from Sept 27, 2018, recognizes EHS and its correlation to EMFs ( I don’t like the name EHS and prefer to call it Microwave Sickness -the older and more accurate name). Glad to see another judge who has shown commitment to common sense and truth. The French Social Security Court recognized electromagnetic intolerance as a work-related handicap.
A reminder, in 2016 another French court awarded disability payments for a woman who the court acknowledged to be suffering from “Allergy to W-Fi”
Unfortunately courts have been failing especially on the wireless issue however, this decision and a few others keep me still hoping that courts may be of help nevertheless. That some judges are left with common sense and who are brave enough to see the truth and act upon it.
My feelings remind of a quote from the movie Philadelphia when Andrew Beckett, who was an attorney says “It’s that every now and again – not often, but occasionally – you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill when that happens” This is the quote I put on my law school’s notebooks.
Summary of the French Case
The Plaintiff, a technical assistant in the service department was diagnosed with EHS. The company’s doctor asked twice – once in 2011 and once in 2012 to allow him to work in a low EMF environment. But the employer didn’t accommodate him.
In Nov. 2013 a meeting took place in the office and many wireless devices were used – cell phones and tablets. The P didn’t feel well, his heart rate increased, he was dizzy fell and got injured.
He claimed that the cause for the symptoms and therefore the injury was the EMFs.
The insurance company refused to pay him claiming there was no casual link between the EMFs and the fall.
He appealed the decision. The court appointed a medical examiner, a neurosurgeon who claimed that there is no causal relationship and that the cause of the fall is psychiatric – the Ps anxiety of EMFs ie, not the EMFs themselves.
The court was not convinced by the report of the medical examiner and asked for another expert to be appointed. Dr. Pons – senior lecturer in cervicomaxillo-facial surgery at the university was appointed.
Dr. Pons, the second medical examiner determined that there was no external cause to the accident and that the casual link between the exposure to the EMFs and the accident should not be excluded. He said that even if it is not possible to scientifically prove it, because the P was already recognized as suffering from EHS by the doctor in 2011, the accident could have been caused by his exposure to the EMFs.
The court rejected the suggestion that the P suffers from a psychiatric condition – anxiety because he just believe that EMFs are harmful. The court said no other external cause can explain the symptoms and the fall and that a causal relationship between his EMF exposure and the accident is possible especially as he was diagnosed with EHS and was forced to continue and work in an unsuitable environment.
The decision is important for the following reasons:
1) Just like in the US, in France EHS/Microwave Sickness is not an officially recognized medical diagnosis. Nevertheless, doctors DO diagnose patients with it and the courts are acknowledging the diagnosis.
2) Just like in the US – the court in France did conclude in the past that EHS is real and can be caused by exposure to non-thermal EMFs
3) The court rejected the court’s appointed medical examiner opinion. The medical examiner didn’t accept the doctor’s diagnosis of EHS and claimed that P doesn’t suffer from EHS but from a psychiatric problem of being afraid of EMFs which leads to an anxiety. The court rejected the medical examiner report, appointed another expert and accepted the diagnosis of the doctor of EHS.
NATOA Webminar on Oct 10 – FCC Actions’s Impact on Municipalities
The FCC Proposed Action
The rulemaking is scheduled to be voted on Sept 26. Since the FCC vote is a sham the rulemaking is likely to pass.
The rulemaking “would implement a federal law to blocks municipal rules that would prohibit deployment of wireless service, and would only allow municipalities to charge fees on small cell deployments limited to covering the municipality’s costs. The plan would also require approval or disapproval of applications to attach small cells to existing structures within 60 days and to applications to build new poles within 90 days, and places “modest guardrails” on rules like aesthetic reviews that may slow down service.” Press HERE for an article that summarizes the essentials of the FCC’s Sept. 26 rulemaking.
The rulemaking is supposed to save the industry about 2$ billion…A few days ago a good article was published that critisizes the FCC rulemaking “FCC’s 5G masterstroke little more than big biz cash giveaway“ and says correctly that this action by the FCC will expand not narrow the digital divide..Clearly the FCC actions are not well thought of no matter how one looks at them and clearly do not aim to act in the best interest of public. The FCC actions seem to be in the service of industry only not surprising though as it is a Captured Agency.
A reminder – a few months ago, a mayor who was sitting on an FCC committee on Broadband deployment resigned saying that the FCC is controlled by the industry.
I think the FCC’s actions may qualify as racketeering under RICO.
Letter of NATOA & Other Municipal Organizations to FCC
On Sept. 19th NATOA with the National League of Cities and the National Association of Cities, submitted a letter to the FCC objecting the FCC Rulmaking to remove “barriers” to wireless deployment and investment (WT Docket 17-79 & WC Docket 17-84).
Conference of Mayors Announced It Will Sue FCC Over Legislation
They said in their statement:
“The U.S. Conference of Mayors strongly opposes recent proposals by the Federal Communications Commission to grant communications service providers subsidized access to local public property and to dictate how local governments manage their own local rights-of-ways and public property.”
They mention concern over safety issues:
“This unprecedented federal intrusion into local (and state) government property rights will have substantial adverse impacts on cities and their taxpayers, including reduced funding for essential local government services, as well as an increased risk of right-of-way and other public safety hazards.”
They clearly stated that unless the FCC will change its policy they will sue the FCC:
“The Conference of Mayors strongly opposes these proposals and calls on the agency to change them; absent such changes, the Conference and its members will seek relief in federal court to overturn this unprecedented overreach by the FCC.”