Subject: AHA press release, Appealing Fed Court ruling (Kelley)..
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 133749 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
........This could become an important case..... Like all court
processes. though, it could be slow and inadequate in its final
outcome.....
The AHA appealers ought to have a strong case on the violation of the
10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that occurred in the 1996 Telecom
Act, however..... And their appeal - which also raises the public
"health" issue - could get stronger as events now transpiring "outside"
the U.S. continue to progress......
The "health" issue may boil down to the court's willingness to "consider"
the latest science information ... rather than confining its decision to
what was presented in the lower court.....
This bespeaks the problem of a society/government that avoids its
EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE responsibilities (to protect the public from
harmful materials) ... and leaves the process entirely to the courts....
(Sometimes, however, courts, too, are human and are aware of the fact that
they have been forwarded a case with evidence that is out of date
due to subsequent developments.....)
There is mention below of the "reasoned debates that are taking
place" on this (EMF) issue....???
That is not what is happening at all.....!!! What is happening is that
the Washington $$$$$$ oligarchy $$$$$$ under the control of special
"vested" interests has succeeded in quashing virtually all public
awareness of this problem ... which affects literally tens of
millions..... The public debate that SHOULD be taking place ... is totally
absent......!!!
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
Missed opportunity...
$$$$$ We could have changed the corrupted system!! $$$$$
McCain !!
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???
Libby Kelley has forwarded the following........
Ad Hoc Association
Of Parties Concerned about the
Federal Communications Commission Health & Safety Rules
P.O. Box 7577, Olympia Washington 98507-7577
Phone 415-891-1863 Fax 415-892-3108 Website http://www.ccwti.org
For Immediate Release
Contact: Libby Kelley
AHA, Executive Director
415 892-1863
Federal Court ignores citizen call for radiation protection from
wireless communications technologies
On February 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, rendered a long
awaited decision on a major citizen-led court challenge to the Federal
Communication Commission rules (under Docket Nos. 97-4328(L);
98-4003(Con); 98-4005(Con); 98-4025(Con); 98-4122(Con). The court
affirmed the FCC rulings on all counts in this decision, which was
released after a ten-month hiatus following oral arguments. Meanwhile,
the wireless telecommunications facilities rollout continues surging
through communities throughout the United States.
Three separate groups, The Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about
FCC Radiofrequency Radiation Health and Safety Rules (AHA), the
Communication Workers of America (CWA) national organization and, the
Cellular Phone Taskforce, representing numerous grassroots groups,
telecommunications workers, and persons suffering from environmental
illness, filed for federal review of FCC rulemakings in October, 1997,
following final publication of FCC rules to promulgate guidelines for
health and safety standards of radio frequency radiation, streamline
procedures to meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements for
FCC licensees, retaining FCCs exclusive ability to regulate wireless
facility operations.
The major legal issues raised in the appeal were: 1) The Guidelines for
Evaluating the Environmental Effects of RadioFrequency Radiation, 11
F.C.C Rcd. 15123 (1996), and, 2) procedures for Reviewing Requests for
Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section
332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934, 12 F.C.C. Rcd 13494
(1997). The lead attorney in the consolidated appeal was James R.
Hobson, Esq., of Donelan, Cleary, Wood and Maser, P.C., Washington D.C.
Filing an amicus brief in support of the petitioners on behalf
of citizens in New England was the law firm of Seymour and Landy in New
York.
The FCC was supported by intervenor briefs filed by major U.S.
telecommunications and broadcast corporations including, the Cellular
Telephone Industry Association, the National Association of Broadcasters,
ATT Wireless Corporation, the Electromagnetic Energy Association and, the
Association of Maximum Service Television.
Page 2 of 3
The citizens who brought this case have vowed to take it forward on a
ppeal. The law offices of Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Seymour and Landy,
has offered to assume pro bono legal representation for AHA on an appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal challenge will focus on
constitutional issues under the 10th Amendment, at a minimum. Mr.
Seymour served as an U.S. Attorney and is the founder of the National
Resources Defense Council. The Seymour and Landy law practice specializes
in Health Care, Administrative and Constitutional Law. Mr. James R.
Hobson, Esq, who served as lead attorney for the appellate court appeal
will be retained as a consultant for the coming appeal.
The petitioners claimed in lengthy arguments, supported by numerous
affidavits, that FCC Guidelines violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Rehabilitation Act; that FCC was arbitrary and capricious in
enacting the Guidelines in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), specifically 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A); that FCC violated the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to conduct an environmental
impact statement; 4) that FCC exceeded its powers when it prohibited
state and local governments from regulating the operation of personal
wireless service facilities according to the FCCs radiofrequency
guidelines; and, by preempting state and local powers to consider health
and environment in making wireless telecommunications decisions, the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), is
unconstitutional.
According to David Fichtenberg, AHA President, We believe the Court
has ignored strong factual evidence which shows that FCC unlawfully
failed to assure public health protection in adopting the current
radiofrequency human exposure guidelines. Further, we believe it is
unlawful to preempt local government ability to protect public health
from potentially hazardous exposure to low intensity radiation. We call
for a public policy solution to the serious imbalance that exists in the
U.S., which allows for industry control over the scientific research
agenda, the RF radiation exposure standard-setting process, with
little regulatory control over what is emerging as a major new public
utility.
The AHA suit contends that there are several major flaws in the FCC rules
that are placing peoples lives and their health at stake. One clear
example is a family in Manhattan who was forced to flee their
condominium and sell it at loss after realizing they were being heated
up in their beds at night. The FCC investigated and found there was a
transmitting antenna on adjoining rooftop less than thirty feet away.
This family was not able to resolve their concerns, after repeated
attempts, by going to the FCC. Radiation meters cost money and there is
little way for citizens to be competent enforcers without spending
a lot of money on equipment. Rooftop antennas and towers over 34 feet
in height may be sited without taking into account proximity to nearby
buildings or hillsides. Due to Section 704 of the Federal
Telecommunications Act, state and local governments are not allowed to
deny a site based on health concerns. Although the exposure conditions
may be within legal limits, the growing body of anecdotal information is
a call for serious examination as many people are reporting adverse
health effects that they attribute to nearby antennas and towers.
Page 3 of 3
The U.S. RF exposure guidelines set the threshold for unsafe exposure at
thermal level radiation and are among the highest standards in the world.
The reason for this is well understood to be the result of a well-financed
and orchestrated lobbying effort on behalf of the communications
corporations and to preserve military interests at home and abroad. Other
countries have applied much lower standards, including Switzerland,
Russia, Italy and China. Austria is the first country to set standards
to ensure the radiation environment, or electrosmog, meets a certain
lowered threshold. The City of Toronto, Canada has proposed that
wireless carriers voluntarily meet lower emissions standards. The
United Kingdom will publish a major report in April that is expected to
reduce mobile base station mast siting near residences and schools.
Presently, Senator Leahy (D-Vt.), Senator Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Cong
ressman Saunders (D-Vt.) are proposing to include funds to conduct
radiofrequency research in the FY 2001 Health and Human Services
appropriations language. The National Institute of Health would be
allocated up to $50 million over 5 years on the first-ever evaluation of
RF ambient radiation bioeffects. In addition, the Vermont Congressional
delegation has two bills under consideration Congress, S. 1538 and H.R.
2834. In California, Senator Tom Hayden just introduced a consumer
oriented cell phone bill (SB 1699), that would require the state health
agency to do an RF bibliographic review, to require state-licensed
retailers to post warning signs at sales locations and to advise
customers to purchase and use hands-free protection devices.
The decision to appeal to the Supreme Court is encouraging to the millions
of Americans who are seeking relief from the onslaught of transmitting
antennas and towers. Citizens are hard-pressed to know what to do to
effectively oppose a cell tower proposal. They often become embattled
with their neighbors and local government in an effort to protect homes,
childrens playgrounds and church steeples from becoming a preferred site
for wireless transmitters. Cheryl Ciccone, a Haversford, Pennsylvania,
mother of two, speaks for many when she writes, "I may create some
enemies in my church and daycare, but as you know, a mother would lay down
her life for her child."
Jan Newton, Executive Officer for the EMF Network in Vermont and one of
over fifty individuals who signed onto the AHA initial appeal, calls
for Federal intervention in order to protect people from harm. She
states: We hope the reasoned debates taking place as wireless
technologies unfold will lead to more protective public health,
environmental and consumer safety protections for all. Technology always
brings unintended consequences and technological development is never
neutral. Government must be more proactive in setting public
health-based policy for safe RF exposure limits.
######
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com