Children and Adults with Sensitivity to Wireless are Being Discriminated Against

Some have won in their civil actions to be accommodated. Some have won for disability. 




Americans with Disabilities San Francisco Hearing, January 2011
Full transcript of meeting in which electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivities were discussed under the ADA law.


Legal Accommodations and Court Cases


  • A 2015 Federal complaint against a private US school seeks injunctive relief for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages for breach of contract and negligence. After more robust School Wi-Fi was installed in Spring 2013, a 12 year old boy started to experience troubling symptoms, which he reported to his parents when he came home from school. These included severe headaches, itchy skin, and rashes. The school nurse indicated that various children in the same classes were reporting increased headaches, dizziness, nausea and chest pressure. The symptoms were present whenever he was at school. The complaint states that the school has failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the child as required by the ADA. 


“According to the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability laws, public and commercial buildings are required to provide reasonable accommodations for those disabled by chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities.”
The parents offered to pay themselves for non-disruptive accommodations such as hardwiring the internet with ethernet connections  and the school declined. The school insisted that the Wi-Fi system complies with Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) radiofrequency radiation guidelines adopted in 1996 despite the EPA clarifying that such regulations do not apply to long-term Wi-Fi exposures in schools. The Fay Board of Trustees received four letters  from scientific experts in electromagnetic fields. You can read them here. 
Read more about this court case




  • FRENCH COURT AWARDS DISABILITY PAYMENTS TO A WOMAN SICKENED BY WIRELESS: Marine Richard was granted renewable monthly payments of 800 Euros (about $1,200 CAD) over three years after the Toulouse court said she was unable to work due to a condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).​ "It's almost like they are being electrocuted, but very slowly." Sensitivity to electromagnetic fields is recognized as an obstacle to working. Read The Article Here.


  • UK, 2012, British Tibunal Case Won (Author's note: text directly from claimant). The case was heard in the Social Entitlement Chamber in July 2012. The claimant was awarded Employment and Support Allowance under ESA Regulation 29 (Exceptional Circumstances) ESA Regulation 29 (Exceptional circumstances) 29. The Judge stated that “were it not for EMR the appellant would lead a normal life with little or no functional impairment”. Further that “……the condition described was not one commonly found but the Tribunal considered the reality of life…..Considerations included the fact that the appellant would be unable to work in any ‘normal’ working environment indoors or outside- anywhere there was Wi-fi, mobile phones or mobile phone masts…….the jobs where this could be done were few and far between and even then such jobs would almost inevitably entail use of computer Wi-fi which the appellant could not tolerate. Taken together the prospects of the appellant being able to ‘work’ …were effectively nil” From Dr. Erica Mallary -Blythe EHS Working Document


  • Spain, 2011, Spanish Labour Court of Madrid  ‘This has been ruled by the Labour Court to declare Madrid 24 permanent incapacitation of a college professor who suffered from chronic fatigue and environmental and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The ruling is unique in this regard and make a precedent for future conditions related to hypersensitivity to these waves. The verdict was issued on 23 May and gave the teachers 100% of his base salary’.


​​

  • France 2014 : The county house of Disabled Persons (MDPH) Essonne granted late January financial assistance to a person Electro, a first in France, according to the Collective of Electro France.

​​

  • RECOGNISED AS FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT – HOSPITALS: Johansson, 2006, Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):245-58. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment.  Some hospitals in Sweden (e.g., in Umeå, Skellefteå, and Karlskoga) also have built special rooms with very low EMFs so that people who are hypersensitive can get medical care

Insurance Companies Are Well Aware of the Risk

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

“If there is even a reasonable possibility that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic, the time for action in the public health and regulatory sectors is upon us. Even though the financial and social cost of restricting such devices would be significant, those costs pale in comparison to the cost in human lives from doing nothing, only to discover thirty or forty years from now that the early signs were pointing in the right direction....If the probability of carcinogenicity is low, but the magnitude of the potential harm is high, good public policy dictates that the risk should not be ignored.”

DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg in her
2014 Ruling allowing expert testimony on litigation alleging cell phone linked tumors. 


The insurance industry already recognizes the potential risks of EMFs and is protecting itself.  Insurance companies do not cover health damage caused by wireless technologies. 


Several cell phone brain tumor cases are moving forward since Italy's Supreme Court ruled a man's brain tumor was caused by his cell phone. 


​School officials could be held personally liable for wifi in schools. See below.  

The Legal Liability Issues

Parents For Safe Technology

Liability for School Administrators


Who will be held personally liable for negligence? School Officials are refusing to acknowledge the   peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that have been presented to them by concerned parents.

The new Bring Your Own Devices policy that many schools are issuing has resulted in students bringing in a cell phone plus a few other devices to classrooms every day. Will the fact that School Officials refuse to inform parents, teachers and students about the warnings in Safety Manuals and Disclaimers that come with cell phones and other wireless devices also make them liable?

When school officials are notified of this risk, they could be personally held legally responsible for the permanent injuries to our children caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure.





AM BEST: AM Best states in a 2013 briefing that "Emerging technologies pose significant risks with possible long tail losses".  "The risks associated with long-term use of cell phones is unknown, however what is known is the risk that cell tower workers face.  Thermal effects include eye damage, sterility, and cognitive impairments."  Read the briefing here.


AUVA Report (2009)

This Austrian insurance company commissioned experts to assess biological effects of mobile phone radiation. Non-thermal effects were observed:  “… the demonstrated effects, should not even have occurred, according to the strictly thermal interaction mechanism that would have been covered by current exposure guidelines”.

Read The Details Here. 

Lloyd's of London (2010)

"The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years.” Lloyd’s refuses to cover claims linked with RF radiation .

The Lloyds Insurance Company: Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Recent Developments - Emerging Risks Report. November 2010. Read it HERE 

Exclusion of Coverage for Illness from Long Term Exposure
Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. The  recent renewal policy -as of Feb. 7, 2015- excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to a parent's request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” 


Read the Endorsement Change sent out by the Maxum Indemnity Company.


As our friends at Parents for Safe Schools (who posted this information) stated,"This information begs the question, why would an insurance company exclude injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were safe for children and the unborn? 


Swiss Re (2013)

“Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. … This development has increased exposure … If a direct link [to health effects] … were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses ...”

Unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields (Swiss Re 2013)
Overall potential impact: High
Time Frame: >10 Years.


Read the 2013 Report HERE. 


Remember what Swiss Re wrote in 2005.

"For the insurance industry, this standoff gives rise to an extremely dangerous risk of change composed of two parts: the classical development risk, that is, the possibility that new research findings will demonstrate electromagnetic fields to be more dangerous than has hitherto been assumed; and the sociopolitical risk of change, in other words, the possibility that changing social values could result in scientific findigs being evaluated differently than they have been thus far. "






The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being. -Emma Goldman