Login
A group of Massachusetts residents who believe a Verizon tower near their homes is making them sick can’t get relief through the state court system, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled last week.
The ruling, which affirmed a lower court’s decision, came as a blow to residents of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, who have been fighting to relocate or turn down the radiation levels from the Verizon cell tower installed in their neighborhood in March 2020.
The residents’ local health board initially sought to protect them by issuing Verizon a cease-and-desist order. However, when the issue went to state court, both the lower and higher courts ruled that local health authorities cannot intervene when a cell tower is making people sick, as long as the tower complies with the federal radiofrequency (RF) radiation limits set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
“It is a gross miscarriage of justice that a board of health has no power when people are being sick and injured by a cell tower,” said plaintiff Courtney Gilardi, a mother who said her family became ill and had to move because of Verizon’s tower.
Gilardi, who called the ruling heartbreaking, said:
“The court agreed that we were being injured, but held the board could do nothing about it. My heart breaks for my children and my neighbors who have suffered physically, emotionally and financially because of this Verizon cell tower.”
In a July 23 MAHA Action “Media Hub” episode, Gilardi’s daughter Amelia described how the radiation from the 115-foot tower damaged her and her neighbors’ health:
“I developed migraines so bad that I couldn’t concentrate in school, dizziness that had me walking into walls, and nausea that had me sleeping with a vomiting bucket next to my bed each night, if I could sleep at all.
“Others in the neighborhood had it worse. One developed dementia. Others have had heart attacks. Three developed cancer, which two have since died from.”
Many residents left their homes to escape the symptoms, sometimes staying with relatives or camping out in their cars.
Commenting on the state supreme court’s ruling, Amelia told The Defender, “This is not justice. The children, seniors and families around the tower deserve so much better. … How much longer do we have to suffer?”
‘There is no remedy at the state level’
After the residents noticed a spike in illness following Verizon’s activation of the tower, they reached out to their local health board for help. The board researched the health impacts of RF radiation and concluded that the tower’s radiation was harming the residents’ health.
In February 2022, the board ordered Verizon to cease and desist unless the telecom giant agreed to discuss removing or relocating the tower.
Verizon sued to overturn the order. Fearing a costly legal battle, the board rescinded the order.
In May 2022, lawyers supported by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) intervened on behalf of the residents, arguing that the residents’ local health authorities should be able to act on residents’ behalf because the Pittsfield Health Department’s mission is to “protect and improve the health and quality of life of its residents.”
But on Sept. 3, 2024, a Berkshire County Superior Court judge ruled against the residents. The court said the board is “preempted from regulating the operation of the tower due to health concerns from RF emissions that are within FCC guidelines.”
After the plaintiffs appealed, the case was transferred to the state’s Supreme Court, where a panel of judges affirmed the county court’s ruling.
In the Supreme Court ruling, the justices argued that federal preemption supersedes the state’s ability to help the residents. They argued that federal law only gives the FCC — a federal agency — the power to regulate RF radiation levels.
It would threaten national uniformity if states and local authorities were able to regulate wireless radiation, they said — including by telling Verizon it needs to relocate or turn down the radiation of its tower due to local residents getting sick.
“The court told us they were really, really sorry that all of these people had suffered,” but that “there is no remedy at the state level,” said W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless cases and attorney for the plaintiffs, on Tuesday’s episode of “Good Morning CHD.”
Federal courts don’t offer viable legal remedy for Pittsfield residents
The court told the residents they must seek a remedy at the federal level — but that’s not a realistic solution, McCollough told The Defender.
McCollough said the FCC has no statutory process for an individual complaint in this context, and historically, the agency has prioritized industry interests over protecting people’s health.
For example, the FCC on July 22 adopted a four-fold increase in power limits for wireless devices without first conducting a public health analysis on how the change would increase people’s exposure to RF radiation.
Meanwhile, the agency continues to ignore a 2021 court order directing it to review 11,000 pages of evidence supporting claims that wireless radiation at levels currently allowed by the FCC harms people — especially kids — and the environment.
What could help the Pittsfield residents would be to challenge the federal law that the courts have interpreted as preempting state and local action on residents’ behalf, McCollough said.
CHD is leading the 704 No More campaign to legally challenge Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. The section states:
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”
The state Supreme Court justices cited Section 704 of the TCA in their ruling against the residents.
Until the TCA is successfully challenged, the wireless industry has an immunity shield that protects it from state lawsuits alleging harm, including Pittsfield residents’ lawsuit, McCollough said.
“Such an immunity shield is devastating for the Gilardi family,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s EMR & Wireless Program. “They have been evicted from their home for six years now, and to be told by the highest court in their state that there is nothing it can do to help is incredibly frustrating.”
Eckenfels added:
“The liability shield for telecom conveyed by federal preemption is wrong and harmful to many children like Amelia. We are determined to continue the fight on her behalf to make sure that wireless infrastructure is placed as far away as possible from where our children live, learn, and grow.”
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
FCC’s wireless radiation limits don’t protect against chronic exposure
It would also help the Pittsfield residents if the FCC — which hasn’t updated its RF radiation limits in 30 years — would comply with the 2021 court mandate to review more recent scientific studies and explain how the limits adequately protect human health and the environment, Eckenfels said.
“The families near the Pittsfield tower have been injured at a fraction of the radiation the FCC allows,” she said.
The FCC’s RF radiation limits are based on a handful of outdated studies that examined only short-term exposure to wireless radiation. The studies included: a 1977 study involving eleven rats; a 1982 study involving five rhesus monkeys, one squirrel monkey and one rat; and a 1984 study involving five rhesus monkeys.
The studies focused on how hot the radiation had to make the animals before they stopped seeking food.
“A mountain of science has accumulated over the last 30 years that shows exposure to wireless radiation has negative health impacts beyond just tissue heating,” Eckenfels said.
Currently, the FCC has no RF radiation limit that accounts for long-term exposure, she added.
Related articles in The Defender
- Residents of Massachusetts Town Head Back to Court in Case Alleging Verizon Cell Tower Is Making Them Sick
- For 50 Years, Regulators Ignored Report Linking Wireless Radiation to 23 Chronic Diseases
- FCC Limits for Wireless Radiation Exposure Decades Out of Date, Experts Say
- Judge Rules Against Residents of Massachusetts Town Who Allege Verizon Cell Tower Is Causing Illness
- Locked in Battle With Verizon Over Cell Tower, Residents of Massachusetts Town Await Judge’s Decision
- Massachusetts Town Threatens Verizon With Cease-and-Desist Order Over Cell Tower
