USA: Decades of peer-reviewed published research has determined that exposure to sources of electromagnetic radiation including from common wireless sources (cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, etc.) can cause symptoms, illnesses, and injuries. In some parts of the world, government agencies warn residents about this but not in the U.S. In fact, last year, a federal court ruled in favor of organizations and petitioners that sued the “captured” Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for NOT adequately protecting Americans from wireless radiation exposure (including 5G). Despite the ruling, the FCC, has continued to instead promote and fund the deployment of unsafe wireless radiation emitting devices and infrastructure on land and in space (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also supposed to guarantee the safety of cell phones and other radiation-emitting products and infrastructure. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening either (see 1, 2) which has also allowed the wireless industry to harm Americans. Thanks to Science Corruption for allowing Environmental Health Trust to re-post a timeline that has documented this in great detail.
The FDA, Wireless Industry Deception and Cell Phone Radiation: A Deep Dive Time Line
The following timeline is reposted from Science Corruption.
1992 Feb 4: The Food & Drug Administration (FDA), which had many biological scientists but only a few staff radio engineers at its Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), began to get concerned about the proliferation of cellphones and the lack of industry research into possible health effects.
The possibility of another tobacco-type health scandal was openly being discussed, and a closed Congressional hearing was held to develop regulations, and recommend further studies of electromagnetic field (EMF) health effects.
The Committee promoted the idea of moderation in phone use until more was known, while an FDA paper, dated Feb 4 1992, suggested that…
“those who spend long periods of time on their hand-held cellular phones could consider holding lengthy conversations on conventional phones and reserving the hand-held cellular models for shorter conversations…”
Many studies had been sponsored by industry, academic institutions, government laboratories and by military research organizations into the effects of low levels of electromagnetic radiation. The constant problem in the debate of risks is the limited knowledge about the fact that very specific fields interacting with our bodies can in fact have significant effects on our health.
These effects vary throughout populations with some effected to a greater degree than others. This is related to our physical and biochemical differences. The research which is being conducted by the industry is ignoring much of what has already appeared in the literature regarding risk factors.
1992 Apr 8: Susan Reynard of Madeira Beech, began a Florida Circuit Court lawsuit against cellphone companies after being diagnosed with a malignant parietal tumor of the brain in May 1990. She had used an NEC cellular phone for two years prior to the diagnosis. [The South Florida Sun-Sentinel later published a story about the lawsuit which kick-started the 1993 cellphone furore.]
After her death, her husband David Reynard continued the case. This was the first litigation in relation to cellphones (earlier suits had been over the military and police use of microwave radar)
1992 May: Microwave News, a highly respected independent newsletter which dealt with the possible health effects of all forms of EMFs from mains-power to radio-waves (edited by Louis Slessin since the 1980s) reported on the Reynard case. Until 1993, the newsletter had dealt mainly with the potential for power-lines and related ELF problems, and with EMF-related cases over broadcast towers and microwaves from military and police radar.
However, its coverage of cellphones increased rapidly after the initial filing of the Susan Reynard case in Florida. This early reporting showed that the wording of her claim was very broad (which it needed to be) The complaint said:
“The tumor was the result of radiation emitted by a cellular telephone [or] the course of the tumor was accelerated and aggravated by the emissions from the telephone…”
Much of the evidence she might have relied on in this case was still being concealed by the US Army and Air Force. Nor did she get support from the researchers at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) even though they thought there was reason for concern.]
1993 Jan 3: The Fort Lauderdale, Florida Sun-Sentinel published a local article on the death of Susan Reynard. Every major newpaper in the USA followed up with at least one item in the following fortnight.
The Wall Street Journal published a number of stories which mentioned that
- written testimony was provided by an Australian Dr John Holt who ran a quack Microwave Therapy Center in Perth, WA
- also by Florida neurologist David Perlmutter (who ran an alternative and complementary medicine clinic in Florida)
[Neither was a highly credible scientific witness, and so Reynard was never able to produce substantial research evidence..]
Massachusetts Democrat Representative (later Senator) Edward Markey was championing the demands for further scientific investigation.
1993 Jan 12: CNN’s Moneyline program gave the lawsuit its first broad exposure. At the same time there was a ‘coincidental announcement that two high-profile business executives had developed brain tumors.
1993 Jan 21: The Reynard story broke nationally. Susan Reynard‘s husband David Reynard was continuing the suit against two cellular phone companies and the shop which sold the phone. He created a sensation when he appeared live on the Larry King Live TV show making his allegations.
Many newspapers took up the story, and the stocks of cellular phone companies tumbled on Wall Street. However
the Reynard case came shortly after the establishment of the so-called Daubert standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence, which followed the landmark 1993 Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticls […which sought to keep ‘junk-science” out of the courtroom — and ended up giving privileged access only to generously-funded corporate-friendly science instead.]
[Source Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution, by Adam Burgess]
[The Reynald case was still in progress in June 1993 when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on the Daubert Case. However it is extremely doubtful that Reynald would have succeeded with the available evidence to hand, anyway.]
By B.N. Frank
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post