By Allison Scott, Feb 23, 2021 | Original article here.
Is Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) aka “Microwave Radiation Sickness” a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS),” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”
The Court ruled:
“We conclude that Brown adequately pled her cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation for her disability. We reverse on this cause of action.
. . . On June 26, 2018, Brown filed the FAC which alleged five causes of action pursuant to FEHA:
Discrimination based on physical disability;
Failure to accommodate;
Failure to engage in the interactive process;
Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.
By Bruce Kushnick, Feb 22, 2021 | Original Medium article here.
Report Corroborates IRREGULATORS Call to Investigate Billions of Cross Subsidies.
Over the last few weeks, a senior citizen named Aaron Epstein defied the odds. He was so frustrated with his old copper based DSL service and not having a high-speed fiber connection from AT&T California that he took out ads in the WSJ for a hefty $10 grand — and in days, he had humiliated AT&T into connecting him to their AT&T Fiber service.
But what about the other 17.8 million residential customers in AT&T California territory or the 70+ million in the 21 states where AT&T controls the largest public telecommunications utilities in each state?
Adapted from an article by Scott Sonner, Feb 15, 2021 | Original Associated Press article here.
A cell tower disguised as a pine tree is seen in a neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 5, 2021. A federal lawsuit seeking a moratorium on construction of cell phone towers at Lake Tahoe claims Verizon Wireless and regional regulators fail to adequately consider potential harm to public health and the environment under antiquated rules that turn a blind eye to modern technology.
RENO, Nev. (AP) — A federal lawsuit seeking a moratorium on construction of new cellphone towers at Lake Tahoe claims Verizon Wireless and regional regulators are failing to adequately consider potential harm to public health and the environment under antiquated rules that turn a blind eye to modern technology.
A local resident and conservation groups who filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento say they’re trying to protect the same majestic views Mark Twain wrote about in the 1860s at the mountain lake straddling the California-Nevada line. They accuse Verizon and the Tahoe Regional Protection Agency of engaging in the kind of shenanigans Huckleberry Finn and other Twain fictional characters used to dupe unsuspecting victims.
The lawsuit alleges Verizon and its local agent, Sacramento-Valley Limited Partnership, laid the groundwork for the most recently proposed 112-foot (34-meter) tower in South Lake Tahoe, California with false promises to bring a high-speed broadband network to everyone at the lake.
The lawsuit says:
“In what appears to be a classic `bait and switch’ scheme, the telecoms had promised fiber-optic infrastructure at Tahoe in exchange for massive subsidies but now push their wireless agenda for greater profits.”
“The telecoms routinely claim that further facilities are justified to meet a ‘coverage gap’ and provide for additional capacity, but they have actually created that `gap’ and lack of capacity themselves by failing to provide the promised fiber network.”
Adapted from a Feb 11, 2021 National Law Review article here.
On Jan. 25, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) 2020 decision on pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) in which the FCC made a number of procedural changes to its rules an purportedly left the RF-EMR limits adopted in 1996 unchanged. See the Jan. 23, 2020 blog entry “Old Limits and New Procedures for FCC RF Exposure Rules” for detailed discussion of the FCC decision.
Listening to the oral argument reveals that the FCC position was not well received by the Court of Appeals. Strikingly, one of the judges reportedly stated during oral argument that he was inclined to rule against the FCC because the agency’s reliance on U.S. health and safety agencies’ judgments was not well substantiated. The FCC does have an opportunity to add to the record of the case to try to bolster its position.
If the FCC decision is reversed, it could result in an extended period of uncertainty for domestic RF-EMR exposure guidelines, which would likely raise substantial problems for both manufacturers of wireless radio equipment and network operators. Generally, demonstration of compliance with the FCC’s RF-EMR exposure has been considered a safe harbor for equipment manufacturers and system operators — but now, there may need to be substantial changes throughout the entire wireless ecosystem.
The following section of Leo Laporte’s popular This Week in Tech podcast perpetuates misinformation about pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) by conflating ionizing radiation and RF-EMR non-ionizing radiation, which are entirely separate phenomena, each with its own separate and distinct ways of causing harm to biological organisms.
August 25, 2019: This Week in Tech 773
One innacurate theme discussed here is that ionizing radiation can cause harm to biological organisms, but non-ionizing radiation from 24/7 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and use of wireless devices cannot cause biological harm. Such a claim is not supported by the peer-reviewed science from the last 75 years. Both forms of radiation cause biological harm. RF-EMR exposures cause biological harm at levels around 100,000 times lower than the FCC far-field RF-EMR maximum public exposure guideline.