Few quick comments after listening to the arguments of both sides and judges…
Neither side’s presentation of the case was really satisfactory, at least to scientist…
- Judges wondered why FCC is being sued. FCC relied on advice from FDA, claiming that RF-EMF doesn’t cause cancer. Indeed, not only FCC but also FDA should have been sued by the EHT et al. So, EHT lawyer had hard time to justify why FCC is sued when it followed advice of FDA.
- Judge also wondered that there was not provided, by EHT et al., any radiation limit that would be better than this used by FCC. EHT lawyer’s reference to BioInitiative report was not very convincing. Interestingly, lawyer claimed that BioInitiative does not provide specific exposure limit… this is as far as I know incorrect. BioInitiative gives specific exposure limit that, in its opinion, would be safe.
- EHT made valid claim that situation has changed since 1996 and currently users are exposed to multitude of RF-EMF sources at the same time. Furthermore, EHT claimed that the scientific evidence gathered since 1996 suggests that not only cancer but also other health effects are caused by RF-EMF: leakage of blood-brain barrier, DNA damage, impact on sperm and fertility in general.
- FCC lawyer had problem to explain what is the scientific basis for the FCC claim that exposures to multitude sources of RF-EMF is safe. The only science FCC lawyer was constantly referring to was that only thermal effects cause harm and that FDA provided advice on cancer.
- Judges inquired about the non-cancer effects because the FDA reviewed only cancer evidence. At this point FCC lawyer referred to the reviews of science performed by ICNIRP and WHO, who reviewed not only cancer but also other effects. Reference to ICNIRP and WHO was provided by FCC lawyer because there was not done review of all health evidence as requested by the US Congress.
- Here judges inquired what is happening with the inter-agency group of experts that US Congress requested to review all health studies and provide advice to FCC. Judges pointed out that this inter-agency expert group was not referred in FCC submission. Judges wondered whether this group of experts exists. FCC lawyer had no knowledge of the expert group. Thus, judges requested urgently information whether such group indeed exists, when it was established and did it review science, as per US Congress request.
- While judges wondered why FCC is being sued, they also understood that the FCC’s evidence of no harm is outdated.
Conclusion: in my opinion when EHT will simply ask for scientific evidence that support FCC safety claims, the FCC will not be able to provide sufficiently reliable evidence because science has not been sufficiently done and safety limits are based on assumptions by ICNIRP and its US counterpart IEEE/ICES.