This is a critically important, landmark, Appeal ruling in the US, which ought to have enormous global ramifications, for our case and for all those seeking to highlight the risks of human exposure to 5G and wireless technology radiation—where the court held that the safety limits used were both ‘arbitrary and capricious’

“On August 13 [2021], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current human exposure guidelines adequately protect the public against all the harmful effects of exposure to 5G, cell tower, cell phone and wireless technologies.”

Whilst no two cases are factually identical, the principles are often similar. 

The obvious similarity is the manner in which authorities both side of the Atlantic have engaged in processes which have ignored studies about potential health harms. 

The core failures in the US case related to the process adopted by the Federal Communications Commission which disclosed—(i) the absence of a reasoned record of review for the thousands of pages of submitted scientific evidence and most importantly (ii) the absence of a reasoned explanation for its assertion that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation.

The main grounds of our renewal for a court hearing strongly echo these points: 

  • This case concerns an important issue of public safety. It raises the risk to which members of the public, including particular vulnerable individuals, and children, are being exposed without having consented to or agreed to expose themselves to that risk; and without an adequate and proper consideration undertaken by the relevant safeguarding authorities of the creation of those man-made public health risks.
  • Failure to, or abdication of responsibility to, review the scientific and available evidence as the body responsible for the safety of citizens / Failure to take account of evidence of the risk posed to human health by radiofrequency radiation, ‘RFR’, and/or 5G;
  • Failure to undertake an effective independent and sufficiently informed assessment of the risks;
  • Failure to implement effective safeguards to protect the public from the risks or potential risks, including those posed to children attending schools and nurseries and/or to those with a disability;
  • Absence of sufficient measures to provide effective protection for children from the real risk of harm;
  • The adoption of RFR exposure guidelines concerned with thermal effects only which do not suffice to discharge the duty to take all practicable steps to the greatest extent possible to protect against a violation;
  • Failure to ensure or safeguard a safe environment for human health.

A petitioner in the US case forcefully summarised the outcome:-

‘This is a win for our children, our future, and our environment. The court’s decision should be a wake up call worldwide‘

Please continue with your generous support and thank you for sharing this appeal as widely as possible to encourage others to contribute.