Environmental Health Sciences reports: The US nonprofit has pulled key quotations out of the Federal Communications Commission's September 25 court filing, the response we covered in FCC files court-ordered response on its five-year delay in the 2021 RF exposure limits case, and grouped them under the FCC's own headings. The agency asks the DC Circuit to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus, which would have forced it to act.
Its arguments, in its own words: The remanded issues are a highly technical subject at the frontier of science, Congress prescribed no timetable, the record shows no substantial health risk from further delay, the wireless industry adds more than 825 billion dollars to US GDP annually, and the FCC lacks the expertise to interpret biological research and has deferred to other health agencies. A footnote says it would need at least nine months after the October 22 comment deadline to adopt an adequate explanation. Theodora Scarato, who heads the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, responds that the FCC cannot state the record shows no substantial health risk before it has completed the review the court ordered.
"There is no per se rule as to how long is too long"
"Congress has not prescribed a timetable for the Commission to act."
"the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits."
"the wireless industry adds more than $825 billion in [Gross Domestic Product] annually to the American economy."
"The FCC generally lacks ‘the expertise to interpret the biological research necessary to determine what [RF radiation] levels are safe,’ and for that reason has up to now depended on, and deferred to, other health and safety agencies that are more expert in this area…"
"the Commission would require a minimum of nine months from the October 22, 2026 deadline for comments in response to the Public Notice to consider, prepare, and adopt an adequate explanation responding to the Environmental Health Trust remand."
"How can the FCC confidently state the record does not demonstrate a “substantial health risk” when it has not yet completed the review required by the court?"
Location
📍 Washington, D.C., United States
