A child advocacy group has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the Federal Communications Commission decision to maintain current rules around non-thermal levels of radiofrequency (RF) exposure, which is allegedly causing microwave or radio wave sickness due to the installation of 5G cellular antennas near homes and schools.
This unique avenue of complaint against a federal agency comes at a time when telecommunications companies are rolling out 5G broadband technology nationwide, according to media reports.
Julie Levine, president of 5G-Free California, told the Southern California Record that the COVID-19 outbreak has accelerated some of these installations in California schools and that they are concerned to the point of calling schools to warn them of the alleged danger.
| Pixabay
“We are documenting, to the extent that we can, the schools that are already experiencing this rollout and reaching out to the different schools and saying 'please do not do this during this time',” Levine said in an interview. “We want to be able to weigh in on it.”
The Children’s Health Defense alleges in its Feb. 3 petition for review before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that petitioners, their children, patients and others have fallen ill as a result of exposure.
“Symptoms may include headaches, pain in the head or tingling when using wireless, difficulty sleeping, cognitive and memory problems, heart palpitations, fatigue, persistent flu-like symptoms, skin rashes, auditory effects, nausea, noise sensitivity, nosebleeds and many other symptoms,” wrote attorneys for Children’s Health Defense in the appeal
The FCC responded on Feb. 12 by submitting a motion to transfer the proceedings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because that’s where a parallel proceeding was filed by Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris and Theodora Scarato on January 31. The Children’s Health Defense filed their petition three days later. The federal appellate court has yet to rule on the FCC’s Motion to Transfer.