Citizen Press Release - Holding the FCC Accountable: SWORT/EHT Seek Citizen, Lawmaker Support

BY NICK ROGERS

In 2021, a federal court ruled in favor of petitioners who sued the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for not updating radio frequency (RF) wireless radiation guidelines since 1996.  These outdated guidelines include all wireless devices and infrastructure including controversial utility SMART meters (electric, gas, and water).

Since 2023, SW Ohio for Responsible Technology (SWORT) has been asking Ohio lawmakers at the local, state, and federal level to write letters to the FCC asking that the agency comply with the court order. To date, the FCC has not updated its guidelines.

SWORT – a non-funded, non-partisan group with members throughout Ohio – is opposed to privacy-invasive and unsafe technologies being installed throughout our state, often without Ohioans’ knowledge or consent and using taxpayer dollars. 

Board Member Monique Maisenhalter told TOR that SWORT members have asked most state and federal lawmakers to write and send letters to the FCC at least once since 2023. 

So far, 11 state lawmakers have written to the FCC about this issue (4 of whom are on the Health Committees).  

To Maisenhalter’s and EHT’s knowledge, the lawmakers who have sent letters are: Senate Health Committee Member Catherine Ingram, House Health Committee Members Tim Barhorst, Jennifer Gross, and Chairman of the Health Committee Jean Schmidt. Senators Louis Blessing and Steve Wilson, Representatives Cindy Abrams, Adam Matthews, Michelle Teska, Cecil Thomas, and former Representative P. Scott Lipps have also written.  The Village of Greenhills Council (Hamilton County) also wrote a letter. 

Environmental Health Trust (EHT) was one of the petitioners in the lawsuit against the FCC. It has posted these letters and additional information about federal wireless bills on its website.  

As with any new political administration, new legislation will be introduced. Some wireless legislation is currently being introduced and rushed through that could completely eliminate municipal authority over the deployment of cell towers. Last year, this author wrote about one of these types of bills: HR 3557:  The Big Telecom Takeover Continues The Silent, Deadly Rollout of 5G: Do You Consent? 

Below is a template letter created by EHT in conjunction with SWORT urging lawmakers to contact the FCC, along with some artwork produced by EHT:

Dear ___________________, 

In August 2021, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit¹ in the case of Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC mandated that the agency provide a reasoned explanation for its 2019 Order² retaining 1996 wireless radiation limits and cell phone test procedures. The court ordered the FCC to specifically address evidence related to the impacts of wireless radiation on children, the health implications of long-term radio frequency (RF) exposures, and RF impacts on birds, bees and trees.

To date, the FCC has done nothing in response to the court order. 

I am writing to request that the FCC comply with the court order and produce a reasoned and robust examination of wireless RF regulations that takes into account all living things. The court found that the FCC failed to adequately review the science. In addition, since 2019, several major studies on the impacts of wireless radiation on human health and the environment have come out that must be considered in the review.³ If the FCC does not refresh the record with recent data, its conclusions would again be deficient because it would have ignored the latest findings. 

Currently there is no federal agency with health or environmental expertise ensuring that cell towers and 5G/6G small cells are safe for public health nor for the environment (birds, bees and trees). These are significant regulatory gaps. 

Thus, in order to provide a comprehensive basis on which to set standards, the FCC, before responding to the court order, should:

1. Refresh the record by reopening Docket 13-84 “Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies” to ensure recent science is included. 
2. Ask the relevant U.S. health, safety and environmental agencies to systematically review the relevant science on wireless technologies in a transparent process.

Thank you for your consideration.

_______________________________

1 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (2021). https://www.fcc.gov/document/dc-circuit-decision-environmental-health-
trust-v-fcc. Consolidated with 20-1138, Argued January 25, 2021, Decided August 13, 2021.
2 Search: FCC 19-126: In the Matter of Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields:
Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies: Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human
Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
3 Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy,
laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. Sep 27. Choi Yoon-Jung et al., (2020) file:///Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors/ Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(21), 8079 Schuermann, David, and Meike Mevissen
(2021) "Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health" – International Journal of Molecular
Sciences 22, no. 7: 3772. and Halgamuge MN, Skafidas E, Davis D. (2020). A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation
exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environmental Research, Volume 184 and Uche, U.I., Naidenko, O.V. (2021) “Development of health-
based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach” – Environmental Health 20, 84 (2021)
Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36935315/ Current
Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374.

The more constituents put pressure on lawmakers, the better chance that those who have not yet written the FCC will do so. With enough lawmaker pressure, a tipping point may be reached and the FCC may feel forced to act. Without their feet being put to the fire, the agency will likely continue dragging said feet. 

If you would like to help SWORT and EHT obtain more letters, join SWORT on Facebook and send an email to swo4responsibletech@fuse.net for more information.