AI summary & topic connections

Describes legal representation of residents seeking responsible wireless-facility siting. Argues that federal preemption prevents local health-based objections, criticizes unchanged FCC exposure guidelines and welcomes HHS review of wireless health effects.

  • Towers & siting: “our clients oppose the placement of cell towers and other wireless facilities in residential neighborhoods”
  • Section 704 / TCA: “when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996”
  • Exposure limits & oversight: “the FCC has refused to update its 1996 emissions guidelines”
  • Research & federal duties: “we applaud HHS for undertaking this important work.”

Matched review of original text; attachments excluded. Review provenance

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
I am Robert J. Berg, the principal of the Law Office of Robert J. Berg PLLC. My law firm specializes in representing persons seeking the responsible siting of wireless communications facilities. Essentially, our clients oppose the placement of cell towers and other wireless facilities in residential neighborhoods, near schools, day care and senior centers, parks, ball fields, nursing homes, and similar areas where people live, recreate, or spend considerable time. Their concern primarily is that the health risks of non-consensual exposure to wireless radiation 24/7 are considerable and needs to be minimized or prevented if possible. Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it acceded to industry's demand that State or local law is preempted if it denies a permit for the installation and operation of a wireless facility based on environmental concerns of the effect of wireless radiation exposure so long as the RF levels are within the FCC's RF emissions guidelines. Thus, federal law prevents our clients from raising health and environmental concerns when objecting to the siting of cell towers and other wireless facilities in their communities. Our clients then must rely on the FCC to be the guardian of their health with its RF emissions guidelines. Sadly, the FCC has refused to update its 1996 emissions guidelines despite many thousands of peer reviewed published scientific studies showing serious health and environmental impacts from exposure to wireless radiation from cell towers and cell phones and other wireless products. The FCC's 2019 decision to end its inquiry on a proposed rule-making inquiry to revise its 1996 guidelines was challenged in the DC Circuit, and the Court ruled that the FCC's decision, in large part, was arbitrary and capricious. The Court remanded the matter, in part, to address the questions posed by the Court and to reconsider the scientific literature. The FCC cannot be trusted. It has admitted that it has no expertise in the health, environmental, and medical issues. The FCC will need to rely on HHS's expertise. We are very fortunate that HHS is engaging in an analysis of the health issues relating to wireless radiation, and we applaud HHS for undertaking this important work. Thank you.