- From This document
"The Taskforce and other parties that participated in the FCC's public rulemaking process submitted thousands of pages of scientific studies showing how this form of pollution impairs health and the environment."
- From This document
[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]
MAJOR WIRELESS SAFETY CASE HEARD IN FEDERAL COURT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 1, 1999
Contacts:
Libby Kelley, Ad Hoc Association, 415-892-1863
Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Taskforce, 718-434-4499
Worker safety protection failures concern CWA Union Leader
On April 5, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City heard arguments from lawyers representing five consolidated lawsuits alleging that the public is being exposed to dangerous radiation. The most immediate concern is about the human exposure limits to radio frequency radiation (RF) that the Federal Communications Commission adopted in August 1997.
Morton Bahr, President of the CWA (Communications Workers of America), a national union with a membership dominated by telecommunications workers, personally authorized the filing of CWA's appeal on the FCC rules in late 1997. Mark Wilson, CWA's legal representative, said recently, "The President of CWA is very concerned about protecting the health and safety of our workers who are exposed to this radiation on a daily basis." Jointly briefing the case with CWA was the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned About the Federal Communication Commission's Health and Safety Rules. Briefing separately was the lead petitioner, Cellular Phone Taskforce. Attorney Howard J. Symons represented two of the intevenors in the case, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and AT&T Wireless Services.
At the hearing, lawyers for the appellants were retained overtime to answer questions from the three federal judge panel, composed of Judges Walker, Newman and Sack. Attorney John E. Schulz, representing the Cellular Phone Taskforce, one of the citizens groups suing the FCC, told the Court that "radiofrequency radiation is the first form of pollution from which there is no longer any escape anywhere on earth." The Taskforce and other parties that participated in the FCC's public rulemaking process submitted thousands of pages of scientific studies showing how this form of pollution impairs health and the environment.
Joel Marcus, legal counsel for the FCC, said, "The Commission does not have the expertise to make independent judgments on various health effects. That's the responsibility of the federal health and safety agencies." But Schulz and James R. Hobson, arguing for Ad-Hoc Association and CWA, pointed out the FCC failed to ask the expert agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute Of Occupational Safety and Health and, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- to evaluate any of the supporting evidence or public comments. "The FCC, after admitting that it does not have any expertise, nevertheless determined that this massive amount of amount of evidence in the record couldn‘t make any difference," said Schulz.
During questioning of FCC Counsel, it developed that even resolving complaints about the FCC rules as written has not been effective. Radiation meters cost money and there is little way for citizens to be competent enforcers without spending a lot of money on equipment.
Meanwhile, Congress is considering a bill, S. 800, which would further mandate rapid deployment of wireless technology for public safety reasons. The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, which passed the House (H.R. 438) in February, contains a provision that preempts State tort laws by granting certain immunity from liability to wireless carriers and manufacturers. The rationale given by industry representatives is that this provision would achieve parity with the same conditions wired services and products now operate under. (For more information, contact the EMR Network at 802-426-3889.)
David Fichtenberg, President of the Ad Hoc Association, is concerned this provision may add to the burden of proof and the liability for citizens. He points out, "It is now scientifically established that there are biological and health effects associated with certain non-ionizing radiation exposure conditions. In addition, the FCC guidelines are hundreds of times higher than public health oriented guidelines such as those Switzerland and other countries are now considering." Many citizens believe it a more prudent public policy to hold industry accountable for adverse impacts of wireless facilities or RF signals on health, quality of life, the environment, or property values.
The Ad Hoc Association, the CWA and the Cellular Phone Taskforce are also challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including Section 704 which compels local zoning boards to approve wireless facilities and prohibits them from considering health and environment in making siting decisions. Other issues raised included discrimination against electrically sensitive people and other vulnerable populations; and, arbitrarily drafted federal rules, such as exclusions from routine RF assessments granted for antennas over 10 meters high and for many antennas on rooftops. This creates unsafe RF exposure conditions for high-rises or hillside buildings.
A court decision is hoped for by early fall.
A coalition of citizens will be meeting concerning these public health issues with Members of Parliament in the House of Commons in England June 1999. Libby Kelley, Executive Director of the Ad Hoc Association will be participating in that meeting.
--
Libby Kelley
Executive Director
Ad Hoc Associaiton of Parties concerned About the FCC's Radiofrequency Radiation Health and Safety Rules
aka: Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]