- Cell phone companies continue to face multiple lawsuits in the US. The article is not available in total at the site. The complete article is below, in letters:
- An excellent article from a group working to educate about dangers of wifi in school. Please read the letter by Dr. Ronald Powell, if nothing else. He has provided it in a format for printing and sharing.
“Dr. Powell created an outstanding document; Message to Public Schools about Wireless Devices. It advises school administrators that “if wireless devices, such as Wi-Fi, are used in your schools, then the health of your staff, your teachers, and your students can be at risk. But this problem can be successfully addressed, and with benefit to all.” Read the document here. It can be copied and sent to any school administrator. He also developed a similar document to be shared with public library directors.”
- There is an ongoing project on Gabriola Island where solar panels are replacing at least partial dependence on BC Hydro. Attached is information documenting the progress for the last 2-3 years. The links, although unusual, do work. I checked them all. An update from Sustainable Gabriola: there are now over 350 heat pumps. The island’s electricity consumption has been reduced by an estimated 945,000 kWh per year. If there are other community projects being planned or developing, please let me now. This is encouraging for all of us.
- For those in and near to Sidney, the Vancouver Island Health Authority is holding a board meeting at 1:00 on Thursday at the Sidney Pier Hotel, Seaport Room, 9805 Seaport Place. We hope to have our concerns heard about wifi being installed and expanded in hospitals, senior citizens homes, hospices, etc. 4 of us asked to be allowed to present but they have agreed to hear only 1 person speak to the topic, which is unusual or so I’ve been told. I hope people in the area will consider attending. There will be a Q & A session and time afterwards to discuss our concerns. A strong turnout will demonstrate the high level of concern. My guess is that there are similar meetings across the province with the health authorities, all of whom report to Perry Kendall. This would be an opportunity to express concerns about the failure to acknowledge science and the failure of experts to be involved in the decision making.
- Last night, I included a letter by Janis Hoffmann to Murray Rankin, MP. At the end she referred to a C4ST fact sheet, which I neglected to attach. It is attached above. Sorry for any confusion.
- From a group in Massachusetts, asking for stories from individuals who are part of the growing community of those suffering from EHS.
The Scientific Alliance for Education (SAFE) in Sheffield MA is seeking stories/testimonials from EHS individuals for a crowd-sourcing effort to establish an on-line resource for EHS/MCS.
Preliminary info is here:
if you would like to contribute your story.
Sheffield MA was the first community to vote for a moratorium on smart meter installation in MA due to the efforts of one individual, Nina Anderson. Although the initial focus is New England, (Northeast USA) the group will also extend its efforts to other areas, especially in establishing a national registry of EHS individuals.
SAFE is also a tax-deductible 501-3C organization and is accepting charitable donations.
Thank you, Patricia in MA
- A member found this on a very popular Australia website about dirty electricity. It’s so very important that this information is reaching a wider audience. I just hope they pay attention and don’t stop at the title!!
The ParksvilleQualicum Beach News did publish the letter from a member. I hope you will respond, because the industry folks have and will:
Case on Health Risk From Cellphones Is Back in Court
Murray v. Motorola faces another test Tuesday when the two sides argue over what legal standard to use
Photo caption: Motorola is a defendant in a lawsuit that alleges that one of its employees may have suffered from health issues as a result of cellphone use. Other cellphone and wireless companies face similar allegations in more than two dozen such cases.
Ryan Knutson, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 22, 2015
Alicia Mitchell was 15 years old when her father sued Motorola Inc., alleging the company’s cellphones caused his brain tumor. She’ll turn 30 in February and the lawsuit is still winding its way through court.
In the years since the lawsuit was filed, other plaintiffs have brought more than two dozen similar cases, the most recent one in October. Defendants include almost all the major cellphone and wireless companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.
Representatives for Motorola and the other defendants referred questions to the CTIA, the wireless industry trade group, which said in a statement that “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk for adults or children.”
So far, the cases have mostly been a battle over legal procedure, not science. Ms. Mitchell’s father’s lawsuit, Murray v. Motorola, faces another test Tuesday when the sides argue over what legal standard should be applied when evaluating evidence brought by scientists.
The case is being closely watched, as it would have ramifications not only for what evidence could be admitted in other cellphone cases, but it could also set a new precedent in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Ms. Mitchell’s father, Michael Murray, was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 1999, after spending several years working at Motorola as a handset technician. He and his wife sued Motorola in 2001. He died in 2003.
Jeffrey Morganroth, a lawyer representing the Murrays, has brought several other cases against Motorola and other defendants. A total of 13 cases have been consolidated into the Murray case, and the plaintiffs are seeking more than $1.9 billion in damages combined.
In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, cellphone manufacturers and wireless carriers specifically acknowledge the risk posed by health-related lawsuits. “We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits,” Verizon wrote in its 2015 annual filing. “In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”
Through the years, the Murray case has withstood several motions to dismiss and an effort to transfer it to federal court. In August 2014, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled that testimony from five scientists could be admitted to the trial.
The defendants appealed, arguing the court should have used a different legal standard, known as Daubert, when deciding whether to admit the testimony from scientists. Judge Weisberg relied on a evidentiary standard known as Frye. On Tuesday, a panel of judges at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments on the matter. Under the Frye standard, the court may only look at the methodology researchers use to determine whether their testimony can be admitted. Under the Daubert standard, judges have more discretion to consider other factors.
“This is a marathon,” said Mr. Morganroth, the lawyer for the Murrays. Eight of the plaintiffs in other cases have died while the lawsuits have been pending, he said. A decision in favor of Motorola and the other defendants, which are pushing for the Daubert standard, would send ripples beyond the Murray lawsuit. Seventeen of the other cellphone-health cases are stayed pending a ruling in this case.
Judge Weisberg wrote in his August 2014 decision that testimony from the scientists he found admissible under Frye would “almost certainly be excluded under Daubert.”
“The consensus throughout the scientific community is that the present state of science does not permit any definitive answer to the question of whether cellphone, [radio-frequency] radiation causes cancer or any other adverse health effects,” Judge Weisberg wrote in that decision.
If the plaintiffs prevail, discovery will begin on the broad issue of whether cellphones can cause brain tumors, specifically, glioma and acoustic neuroma. In addition, the plaintiffs would need to prove cellphones caused the cancer in their specific cases.
U.S. government agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Communications Commission, all say there is no conclusive evidence that cellphones cause cancer, or any other harmful effects. The agencies say further research is needed. In 2013, the FCC began reviewing whether cellphone safety standards, first designed in the 1990s, are still adequate. It has yet to reach a conclusion.
Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” Thomas Jefferson.