Physicians for Safe Technology

Wireless Technology and Public Health

Testimony and Court Cases

Updated 5/16/21

Headlines

Cell Phone Court Cases

No American court has yet ruled that cell phones can cause brain cancer either generally or specifically, nor have the courts prohibited the use of Wi-Fi in schools, however, an Italian judge in 2017 has ruled for the plaintiff. There  have been at least 14 cases that have gone through the courts on brain tumors. This provides lengthy but interesting reading. In April, 2017 an Italian judge ruled that excessive cell phone use can result in cancer. The judge notably did not allow any admittance of research funded by industry.  It appears to be the first time a judge has ruled there may be link between cell phones and brain cancer. 

Murray vs Motorola Cell Phones and Cancer Case

Murray vs Motorola – 2001 is a decades old court case with many plaintiffs who allege that excessive long term use of cell phones caused their brain cancer and that scientific studies showing harm from cell phone use have been suppressed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also allege,“that “[d]efendants were aware of numerous solutions that could virtually eliminate the health hazards of radiation from cell phones such as shielding, antenna phasing, use of low reluctance material pattern, shrouds, canting etc…. The Complaints further allege that federally adopted SAR limits are inadequate in any case because they do not take into account “ ‘hot spots’ 7 created by the convergence of airwaves.” and further, “The Complaints assert that, unwilling to sacrifice profits, defendants neither adopted these safety measures nor warned cell-phone users of potential risks or methods that could be used to minimize their exposure to radiation and to avoid injury.   Instead, the Complaints allege, defendants led the public in general and plaintiffs in particular to believe that cell phones “do not pose any risk of harm to the user whatsoever” and that “there is absolutely no risk of harm associated with the use of cell phones.”

Judge Rules No Basis for Claim due to 1996 Telecommunications Act

One judge wrote, “

Two provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Telecommunications Act”), Pub.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), were the basis for the Superior Court’s finding that the Complaints were barred on the basis of express preemption:  47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) and 332(c)(3)(A).

A. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)

In relevant part, section 332(c)(7) provides:

(7) Preservation of local zoning authority.

(A) General authority.   Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.

(B) Limitations.

(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.

47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (italics added).   Interpreting the term “personal wireless service facilities” to include cellular telephones, Judge Long reasoned that, by prohibiting state regulation of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RF emissions, section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) precludes plaintiffs’ state-law claims about cell phone RF radiation.

Former High level Government Official Provides Robust Scientific Testimony That Cell Phones Likely Cause Brain Tumors and is Prevented from Being an Expert Witness

Christopher Portier, PhD.,former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),  and currently a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), provided expert scientific testimony in a long standing cell phone court case, Murray vs Motorola.  His research summary includes gliomas, acoustic neuromas, carcinogenicity studies, initiation and promotion studies, oxidative stress, genotoxicity and co-carcinogenesis. He notes, “The evaluation of whether RF exposure can cause brain tumors in humans requires the review and synthesis of scientific evidence from studies of human  populations (epidemiology), animal cancer studies, and studies investigating the mechanisms through which chemicals[exposures] cause cancer.”   He provided a 176 page report,Expert report Christopher J Portier Murray v Motorola 3-1-2021, with 441 references. references  with an additional appendix of 291  of his own peer reviewed references.  He concluded, “In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”

For years industry attorneys have opposed expert witnesses in Murray vs Motorloa, citing the ” Daubert” clause distinguishing methodology from conclusion for expert witnesses. This allows the judge to make the decision on who can be an expert witness.  Despite his glowing CV and irrefutable research presented Mr. Portier was rewarded on April 21, 2021 for his diligence and honesty by being  barred from being an expert witness.  This was argued not on Daubert but by industry who convinced he judge that there was not enough time for them to rebut the expert witness. 

Civil Action: Walker vs Motorola 2021

Considering the cell phone lawsuits against the cell phone company Motorola has been going on since 2001 without a judgement and with consolidation of new cases (perhaps 35 now) . A new lawsuit was file against cell phone companies, including Motorola Mobility, A T & T Mobility, and CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET ASSOCIATION (CTIA) noting, “This is a civil action arising out of the design, development, manufacturing, assembling, marketing, sale, servicing and/or support of cell phones, the use of cell phones, and the injuries resulting therefrom.” , relating to Frank Aaron Walker and his excessive and habitual use of a cell phone with a diagnosis go glioblastoma at the age of 47. Walker lawsuit vs CTIA, etc. – 2-21 – cv-00923

Testimony

Italian Supreme Court, April 21, 2017 ruled that excessive, work-related use of a mobile phone caused an executive from Telecom Italia to develop a benign brain tumor. American Article Newsweek

Judge Frederick H. Weinberg,  2014. -MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY.  Bret and Laura Bocook versus Motorola,Inc., et al., 2014.  He notes “It is not the court’s role to resolve disputes within the scientific community. The very existence of a dispute precludes admission.” Court Order Expert Witness Testimony Admittance

 Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, January 14, 2013, expert testimony for the Maine Public Utilities Commission in opposition to Smart Meters.  Dr. Phillips Testimony 

Lloyd Morgan, Testimony, US District Court. Portland Schools vs David Morrison. In support of an injunction enjoining Portland School’s use of Wi-Fi.
December 22, 2011. Amended Testimony

Judge Frederick H. Weinberg. 2001. Superior Court District of Columbia. Multiple Plaintiffs vs Motorola, Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., Nokia, Inc.,  Audiovoxx communications, Inc.  Dismissal of first court case on brain tumors and cell phones, with plaintiffs  suing for damages from illness and loss. Judges Decision

Cell Phone “Right to Know” Court Cases

Berkeley, California

In the United States to date there has been one  cell phone “Right to Know” court case that has been won so far and that is the Berkeley Cell Phone” Right to Know” City Ordinance originally, adopted May 1, 2015.  After loosing an appeal, CTIA -The Wireless Association has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear their case against the City of Berkeley’s cell phone “right to know” ordinance (Jan 2018).  CITA or Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association is a 501c(6) non profit association established in 1984. After several appeals by the cell phone industry association CTIA, judges ruled in favor of Berkeley Ordinance on July 1, 2019.

See. HISTORIC BERKELEY CELL PHONE WARNING ORDINANCE WINS IN US FEDERAL APPEALS COURT

 

The Berkeley City Law requires cellphone retailers to provide consumers with the following notification:

“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”

For a full history of the Berkeley Cell Phone Right to Know Ordinance see Safer EMR site at Berkeley Cell Phone Right to Know Ordinance. 

Ellie Marks Testimony Berkeley Cell Phone Right to Know Ordinance

Testimony on Berkeley Cell Phone Right to Know from Ellie Marks from the California Brain Tumor Association who reads letters from Dr. Lisa Bailey and Dr. John West who  completed a study on breast cancers in several young women who kept cell phones in their bra.   Nov 18, 2014 Berkeley City Council Meeting.

San Francisco Cell Phone Right to Know Ordinance Failed After Passage

In 2010 San Francisco led the way towards a Cell Phone Right to Know Ordinance that asked retailers to list SAR levels (a heat measurement of radiation levels) which are required by law to be in the pamphlet given to customers when they buy their phone.  CTIA- The wireless Industry argued that the law was unconstitutional, misleading to consumers, and that it infringed on first amendment rights of retailers. After a 3 year battle an injunction was filed and the law became non operational. Cell Phone Law Killed by CITA.

FCC Oder on Rapid Deployment of 5G and Small Cell Towers Lawsuits

See also:

U.S. Court of Appeals Motions, Oppositions and Respondents in FCC Lawsuit by Date

 
%d bloggers like this: