Brief against FCC on 5G and Wireless Harms: Submitted!

IN FOCUS, 3 Aug 2020

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr | Children’s Health Defense – TRANSCEND Media Service

31 Jul 2020 – What we put in our bodies and our children’s developing bodies is the most important and most personal choice we make as human beings. But when it comes to damaging levels of radiation, that right to choose has been stolen from us. The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) mission to protect children from toxic exposure reached a major milestone on Wednesday, July, 29 with the filing of the principal brief in our case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Our case also seeks justice for parents of kids who have suffered health impacts from wireless radiation.

The case challenges the agency’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. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman and chief legal counsel, said,

“We are committed to making our government accountable, and giving a voice to injured children, their parents and doctors, and the scientists who have spoken out for justice on this issue.”

Read our full press release.

The FCC guidelines ignore human biology and are based on an obsolete, false and disproven scientific assumption that wireless radiation is not harmful unless causing thermal change in tissue. But CHD’s brief proves that scientific and human evidence of harm from wireless and 5G well below thermal levels was presented to the FCC, but  the agency officially closed the docket on the issue last year and ignored all submitted reports. Therefore, CHD contends the FCC’s decision not to review the “health guidelines” is capricious, arbitrary, not evidence-based and an abuse of discretion.

“The most important evidence is the human evidence,” says Dafna Tachover, director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project at Children’s Health Defense. “Those who have been injured and died because of the FCC’s abuse of power, have been invisible to the FCC like the wireless radiation that harms them. The purpose of our case is to make this invisible problem visible.” Read Dafna Tachover’s Affidavit on behalf of the CHD

CHD’s principal brief cites thousands of studies and medical reports, including those conducted by U.S. government agencies, and references hundreds of testimonials by people who have been injured. The brief shows clear evidence of harm from wireless radiation from exposure to wireless radiation sources such as cell phones, Wi-Fi and cell towers at levels well below current FCC emission limits. It also outlines scientifically the established mechanisms of harm from wireless radiation.

The petitioners in the case include parents of children injured, including a mother whose son died from a brain tumor from cell phones and cell tower exposure, Virginia Farver, who stated, “If the FCC does its job now perhaps other mothers will not experience the pain and suffering I face every day. But the public is being told there is no evidence of harm, that these devices are safe.” When a Petitioner in this case, Michele Hertz, developed Microwave Sickness and contacted the FCC to seek help, the man she spoke to responded, “We don’t deal with humans, only frequencies.” and hung up.

Petitioners in this case also include physicians who see the epidemic of sickness in their clinics daily, like Dr. David Carpenter, a renowned professor, scientist and public health expert, who reports,  “The scientific consensus is that the FCC guidelines have no validity and are causing widespread illness and death,” Prof. David Carpenter is the director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany and co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most extensive review of the science on wireless health impacts written by 29 of the world’s leading scientists.

The outdated and  false guidelines have enabled the uncontrolled proliferation of wireless technology, including 5G. The fast-tracked deployment of 5G will exponentially increase the forced exposure to this proven harmful radiation with 800,000 more cell towers, 50 billion devices that will be wirelessly interconnected and 1,000,000 on the ground antennas to communicate with 50,000 satellites.

In its decision not to review the guidelines, the FCC also astoundingly dismissed the results of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s funded National Toxicology Program study, a $30 million, 10-year study that was supposed to give the American people the final answer as to whether or not wireless is harmful. This study, the largest of its kind, found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage. The results should have put to rest the notion that non-ionizing radiation cannot break DNA. The World Health Organization already classified wireless radiation as a “possible” (2B) carcinogen in 2011. The National Toxicology Program study is the “missing link” needed to classify it as a human carcinogen. Courts, including Italy’s Supreme Court, already determined that cell phones cause brain tumors.


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions. Mr. Kennedy is the Chairman of Children’s Health Defense and was named one of Time Magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success to restore the Hudson River. The group’s achievement helped spawn 300 Waterkeeper organizations across the globe. He serves as President of Waterkeeper Alliance and of counsel to Morgan & Morgan, a nationwide personal injury practice. He was previously Chief Prosecuting Attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper, Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a Clinical Professor and Supervising Attorney at Pace University School of Law. Earlier in his career he served as Assistant District Attorney in New York City. Mr. Kennedy is a graduate of Harvard University. He studied at the London School of Economics and received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School.

Featured in: The law journal Law360

Go to Original –

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.