Friday, October 19, 2012

Judges who know science


Judges who know science

Who said judges are afraid of taking a position on science?

@ "parts of San Francisco's ordinance went too far, conveying what he called a misleading message that cell phones are dangerous."
@ "District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that  no scientific study has yet proved that electromagnetic stimulus adversely impacts personal health."
@ "World Health Organization, “have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints of EMS.”  
 
So?  pickles or coffee?
 
Judge: No scientific study proves EMS damages personal health
 
Robert Nott | The New Mexican
Arthur Firstenberg lost what might have been his final round in court Tuesday, when state 

District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that no scientific study has yet proved that electromagnetic stimulus adversely impacts personal health.

In January 2010, Firstenberg, who has long argued that electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellphones, smartphones, wireless routers and other apparatus can cause illness, sued his neighbor, Raphaela Monribot, for $1 million over the use of such electronic equipment at Monribot’s west-side home. He named Monribot’s landlord, Robin Leith, in the suit as well, though he did not seek financial damages from her.

Court documents quote Firstenberg as complaining that he suffered acute effects of electromagnetic stimulus (EMS) and that, “Whenever I returned home, even for a few minutes, I felt the same sickness in my chest and my health was set back for days.” Firstenberg eventually moved out of his home, though he moved back in some time later.
The defendants countered that there might be other causes for Firstenberg’s pain and suggested he agree to a blind test in which they would try to show whether his symptoms were connected to their use of electronic devices.

As a condition, they asked him to accept that they would not tell him when they were exposing him to such testing.

Court records indicate Firstenberg postponed these tests due to his condition, noting, “He is unwilling to subject himself to such testing in order to prove his case.”

Earlier this month, Singleton ruled that Firstenberg could not discern that his anxiety was caused by the presence of electromagnetic stimulus, but she still gave him time to try to prove that he had been damaged in some way.

On Tuesday, her order noted that he “failed to carry his burden of proof that the evidence he seeks to admit is scientifically reliable” and that reliable studies, including one from the World Health Organization, “have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints of EMS.” Without evidence of general causation, the order states, “plaintiff cannot prevail; therefore, summary judgment is appropriate.”

Monribot’s attorneys, Christopher Graeser and Joseph Romero, said Tuesday that Singleton’s ruling might set a precedent for similar court cases.

“I think before anyone decides to file on something similar, they need to have science … that uses reliable methods that proves what they purport,” Romero said.

“I have no problem with people like Mr. Firstenberg advocating these views in a political sense, but to sue someone for a million dollars is crossing the line. If you are going to do that, you have to have the science behind you. If not, you will ultimately lose and probably do more disservice to the cause you represent.”

Via a news release issued through her attorneys, Monribot said, “It took three years to arrive at what common sense would have easily dictated. … May the right of the individual to use everyday technology in the privacy of his home always prevail against attacks of activists who wish to force their agenda on the rest of the world.”

Speaking by phone from Albuquerque, one of Leith’s two lawyers, Ann Keith, said Firstenberg never sued Leith for monetary damages and said she believes any court rulings in favor of Monribot now apply to Leith or any tenants renting Leith’s Santa Fe home.
Neither Monribot nor Leith lives in Santa Fe now.

Firstenberg’s lawyer, environmental attorney Lindsay Lovejoy Jr., did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday afternoon. Singleton’s order gives the plaintiff until Oct. 1 to approve the order or file an objection.

Contact Robert Nott at 986-3021 or rnott@sfnewmexican.com.

Court blocks S.F. warning on cell phones

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Court-blocks-S-F-warning-on-cell-phones-3854826.php?cmpid=emailarticle&cmpid=emailarticle
FEDERAL COURT Ordinance had been delayed by industry suit
Bob Egelko
Updated 9:03 p.m., Monday, September 10, 2012
Page 1 of 1
A federal appeals court blocked San Francisco on Monday from requiring cell phone dealers to tell customers the products may expose them to dangerous levels of radiation, saying the city can't force retailers to pass along messages they dispute.

The ordinance, the first of its kind in the nation, had been scheduled to take effect last October, but has remained on hold during an industry challenge.

It would require retailers to give each cell phone buyer a fact sheet saying the World Health Organization had classified the phones' radio-frequency emissions as a "possible carcinogen."

The sheet also shows human silhouettes absorbing radiation and suggests protective measures, like wearing headsets, making shorter calls and limiting use by children. Stores would have to put similar messages on large wall posters and on stickers attached to display ads.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government can require businesses to display factual, undisputed information about their products.

Applying that standard, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled last year that parts of San Francisco's ordinance went too far, conveying what he called a misleading message that cell phones are dangerous. He told the city to delete the silhouettes and modify its fact sheet, but said it could still compel retailers to disclose undisputed facts about a "plausible public health threat."

Both sides appealed. On Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco barred enforcement of the entire ordinance while the case continues.

The city's fact sheet, even in the scaled-back version approved by Alsup, "contains more than just facts," the court said in a 3-0 ruling.

Consumers could interpret the list of protective measures as "expressing San Francisco's opinion that using cell phones is dangerous," the court said. That view is debatable, the court said, citing the Federal Communications Commission's findings that the phones are safe when radiation emissions are within the agency's approved limits.

The ordinance requires retailers to pass along, and implicitly endorse, "statements that are even more misleading and controversial than the revised fact sheet," the court said. The ruling was issued by Judges Mary Schroeder and Consuelo Callahan and U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of New York, temporarily assigned to the court.

The city's lawyers and policymakers will review the ruling before deciding their next steps, said Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera. There was no comment from CTIA-The Wireless Association, the trade group that filed the suit.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-blocks-S-F-warning-on-cell-phones-3854826.php#ixzz26hhQQS4q

No comments:

Post a Comment