BERKELEY, Calif. - The City of Berkeley is fighting the wireless industry's trade group in federal court on Thursday. The city is defending an ordinance that would require cell phone retailers to post a sign warning people who carry a phone close to the body may exceed federal guidelines on exposure to radio frequency radiation and children are more at risk.

City council member Max Anderson says most people don't know that the manuals recommend you keep the phone as much as an inch from the body.

"It's a public-education campaign," says Anderson. "To try to stimulate some interest on the part of the public to view these instruments as potentially harmful if not used properly."

In the lawsuit, the trade group, called CTIA-The Wireless Association, quotes the Federal Communications Commission, which found "there is no scientific evidence that proves wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss."

CTIA also argues the signs would be a violation of retailers' First Amendment rights.

But Lloyd Morgan, a senior researcher with the Environmental Health Trust in Berkeley, says the FCC is biased when it maintains cell phones are safe.

"The FCC is controlled by the cell phone industry," says Morgan. "The very person in charge of the FCC was in fact the founding president of the CTIA. He worked for industry in his entire career as a lobbyist."

Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, notes the ordinance doesn't address health risks.

"We don't know how great the risk may be but there's enough data to suggest there is a risk," says Louis. "All Berkeley is doing is notifying people there is such a possibility. That's all."

Two years ago the San Francisco Board of Supervisors withdrew a similar ordinance after a lawsuit by the CTIA. However that ordinance placed more emphasis on the health risks of cell phones, whereas Berkeley's ordinance was written specifically solely to expand disclosure to consumers.

Morgan expects the current case to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, regardless of who wins this round.


get more stories like this via email

This week, the Trump administration announced what it terms "emergency permitting" for energy projects, streamlining a sometimes yearslong process down to 28 days. Opponents said it will mean time in court.

The U.S. Interior Department plans to alter the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act so projects around oil, gas, coal, minerals and more can proceed without the agency approvals the laws require. The department said it's part of President Donald Trump's January "National Energy Emergency" declaration.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said there is no such emergency.

"The idea that there's some kind of 'national energy emergency' is a lie that the Trump administration is making up to justify an extralegal approach to approving energy projects and skipping past the environmental safeguards that Congress put in place," Molvar contended.

He argued the move risks historic sites, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities on Montana's 30 million acres of public land. Molvar added he expects energy projects brought under the new, streamlined permitting will be overturned in court.

The announcement comes just one day after the Interior Department's draft strategic plan for the next four years was leaked. A "big idea" cited in the draft is to, quote, "release federal holdings to allow state and local communities to reduce costs," and in parentheses, "housing." Molvar stressed it would essentially put federal responsibilities in the hands of smaller entities.

"These state and local governments have a distinct tendency -- particularly in conservative parts of the rural West -- to want to maximize industrial development, maximize local communities' abilities to line their own pockets, with really little consideration to the long-term health of the land," Molvar emphasized.

Strategic goals listed in the plan include to "restore American prosperity" and "ensure national security through infrastructure and innovation."


get more stories like this via email

The owner of Michigan's Palisades Nuclear Plant is getting another $47 million to restart the facility.

It is the third installment of a $1.5 billion federal loan package. Palisades was decommissioned in 2022 after more than 50 years of operation.

Now owned by Holtec International, the plant in Van Buren County is expected to supply enough power to serve about 800,000 homes but environmental and Indigenous groups are voicing frustration after a federal panel recently denied a full hearing on petitions challenging the restart.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, is among those in opposition.

"A recent analysis by Dave Lochbaum, who is retired from the Nuclear Safety Program at Union of Concerned Scientists, placed Palisades at something like 84th out of 105 reactors in the country," Kamps pointed out. "His analysis was they're more like in the bottom rung of the industry, actually."

Holtec countered before its 2022 shutdown, Palisades was ranked in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's highest safety category and was a top-performing plant in the industry. Palisades is set to reopen in October, becoming the first U.S. nuclear plant to restart after being decommissioned.

Punkin Shananaquet, a member of Michigan's Indigenous community, emphasized for many Native people, the issue is not just about public safety, it is about honoring the sacredness of the land and water and educating the next generation about protecting the earth.

"We just can't be pushed through the corporate world because they have no spirit," Shananaquet contended. "We have spirit. We are the ones with the feelings for this place."

Holtec International maintains the Palisades restart is being made possible by broad local support, citing not only the energy it will produce but the jobs, economic growth and tax revenue for the area.


get more stories like this via email

Next week, Congress is expected to vote on whether to roll back states' authority to set their own clean car and truck standards.

Research shows some Arizona residents could save more than $1,300 a year on fuel by switching to an electric vehicle.

Rob Sargent, program director for the nonprofit Coltura, which advocates for a transition from gas-powered cars to EVs, said the vote in Congress could potentially undermine EV availability, consumer savings and subsequent job creation. He pointed out middle-class workers benefit the most from driving EVs and using the federal tax credits to buy them.

"They're contractors driving 150 miles daily between job sites, rural drivers, tradespeople and working families," Sargent explained. "Who live where housing is more affordable and you know, jobs are further away."

Coltura has found people in southeast Arizona who drive more than 25,000 miles a year spend on average about $7,000 dollars a year on gas. Republicans want to revise or weaken the clean car standards and tax credits of the Biden administration, which they say have limited the sales of gas-powered vehicles.

There are also concerns about having enough EV charging infrastructure. Sargent pointed out the U.S. has already made significant investments in charging stations and will keep expanding them. If Congress decides states cannot require cleaner cars, changes will be felt across the board.

The upcoming vote in Congress would reverse last year's Environmental Protection Agency decision to grant neighboring California a waiver to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The decision allowed other states to join in, although Arizona was not one of them.

"There have been 10 or so states that have consistently followed California's lead," Sargent observed. "That has played a major role in ensuring that manufacturers make vehicles available so that they can meet those requirements."

President Donald Trump has vowed to roll back the rule. California was issued the special authority because of its unique air pollution issues. While other states can't create their own rules, they can adopt California's. The current plan only affects new car sales.


get more stories like this via email