Evidentiary hearings are underway in a Washington, D.C., courtroom this week, to decide if a massive lawsuit against the cellphone industry will be allowed to go to trial.

Multiple families are suing most of the major wireless companies and their trade association, asking for hundreds of millions in damages, claiming cellphone use causes brain tumors.

Monique Solomon Martinazzi, a plaintiff whose husband Andy passed away at age 43, said he had a brain tumor which developed right where he used to hold his cellphone.

"When cellphones first came out he got one of the original battery-held Motorolas," Solomon Martinazzi recounted. "And it was held to his ear 6-7 hours a day. He was in commercial real estate. And we just felt so strongly that was the reason the brain tumor developed where it did."

The industry trade association and Motorola did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but they have said their products are safe and comply with all government standards.

The lawsuit claims the Federal Communications Commission standards are outdated and pointed to a government study showing exposure to cellphone radiation can cause brain and heart tumors in rats.

Industry lawyers argued in court if cellphones caused cancer, we'd be seeing an epidemic of tumors.

Ellie Marks, founder of the California Brain Tumor Association and another plaintiff whose husband Allan has had two brain surgeries so far, said the industry and the government are ignoring the evidence.

"There is a rise in primary brain tumors, especially gliomas, especially in the younger population," Marks pointed out. "These tumors used to only be seen in those over 65. Now we're seeing people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, perishing from this."

The families are claiming wrongful death, personal injury and loss of consortium.

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California-Berkeley, said if a U.S. court rules cellphone use leads to brain cancer, the implications are huge.

"It probably would lead to many additional cases being filed by brain cancer victims," Moskowitz explained. "It also may force our government to finally take this issue seriously."

In related news, a judge in Canada recently ruled a class-action lawsuit can go forward against Apple and Samsung. The plaintiffs claimed cellphones emit more than the allowable levels of radiation, and the defendants knowingly harmed users.

The state of Washington has launched an online system for tracking food poisoning cases.

The Washington State Health Department has opened its Foodborne Illness Notification System for filing complaints about food safety. Bill Marler, a food-safety lawyer in the state, said the system will rely on data to pinpoint potential food-safety hazards.

"If you get more and more people utilizing these services," he said, "just the sheer volume of the data will make it more useful because you get more angles to look at."

The Health Department says the system is anticipated to help with early detection of diseases, illness prevention, proactive safety measures and educational opportunities. The state has noted that one in six Americans suffers from food poisoning each year.

Marler said he believes the data collection will be helpful, but also notes that it isn't a panacea for stopping outbreaks. He said listeria is a good example: the period between consumption and onset of illness is between three and 70 days.

"I'm not sure I can remember what I ate three days ago, let alone what I ate 70 days ago," said Marler. "So, a lot of this analysis is sometimes flawed by people's memories and the incubation periods."

Marler added that listeria is also a pressing example because of the outbreak of it in deli meat. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two people have died and 28 have been hospitalized from the current outbreak across the country, although no cases have been reported in Washington state.


get more stories like this via email

Big changes are imminent in the way homes are bought and sold, as the new forms for transactions in California come out today.

The forms are linked to the proposed legal settlement by the National Association of Realtors, which ends the long-standing practice of having a home seller's agent pay a commission to the buyer's agent. It benefited buyers who may not have saved up enough money to pay their agent.

George Lopez, a real estate agent in Indian Wells, explained buyers will now have to negotiate a separate contract to hire and pay their own agent.

"Even with these changes, a buyer can still purchase a home without having the money to pay their agent," Lopez explained. "The general public needs to understand that the real estate commissions have been, and will always be, negotiable - and that if they don't have money to pay their agent, they can still potentially negotiate it in their sale."

The lawsuit contended the old way of selling homes tended to drive up costs, as buyers' agents had more incentive to steer people to sellers willing to pay a higher commission. The changes are intended to empower homebuyers to negotiate for a better deal.

Lopez thinks most sellers will still offer to pay a real estate broker, rather than risk losing out on a big chunk of the prospective buyer pool. But it will have to be negotiated in the offer, as commissions will no longer be stated in the Multiple Listing Service. The changes also mean buyers' agents cannot just meet prospective clients "on the fly" anymore, to go check out a home for sale.

"You have to meet me at the office; we have to have a meeting," Lopez pointed out. "We have to have an agreement in place that said that you're hiring me, or I can't show you any homes."

The new forms real estate agents use to complete transactions will take effect nationwide on Aug. 17.


get more stories like this via email

A new Virginia law protects residents from utility shutoffs in extreme weather.

The law prevents utility company shutoffs when temperatures are at or below 32 degrees and at or above 92 degrees. It also prevents shutoffs during states of emergency in response to public health emergencies. Virginia was one of 34 states with a shutoff moratorium during the pandemic.

Kajsa Foskey, economic justice outreach coordinator for the Virginia Poverty Law Center, said enacting this law cleared up some misconceptions.

"Most folks already thought that utilities couldn't shut them off on a day when it was too hot or too cold outside," she said. "So, what we've really done is just created some common-sense foundational protection so that all utility customers across the state know what their rights are."

Despite having some of these shutoff guidelines as unwritten rules, utility companies pushed back, saying it didn't allow them flexibility. Foskey said she thinks the state can build on this by including elements that didn't become law. This includes requiring data collection from utilities about who is being shut off, the frequency, reasons, and the amounts owed. She said this can help craft solutions for people facing shutoffs.

Rising utility prices concern advocates since this increases shutoffs. More than 750,000 Virginia families are energy cost-burdened, meaning they spend 6% of their income on utility bills.

Foskey said another removed part of the law would have reduced financial barriers to reconnection.

"When they try to get reconnected," she said, "not only do they have to pay that past-due amount that they couldn't afford to pay, they now also have to pay reconnection fees, late fees, security deposits, things that really just make the barrier to getting reconnected very high."

She added that this can prevent people from being able to afford everyday essentials such as food or rent. However, the new law has a provision for customers who received state energy assistance in the past year. They're eligible for having their deposit capped at 25% of what they previously owed to be reconnected, but this can only be used once every three years.