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

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Groups say new draft rules proposed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) do not go far enough to properly regulate oil and gas waste facilities, or injection wells, used to dispose of liquid waste.

A hearing is set for Dec. 6.

Megan Hunter, senior attorney for Earthjustice, said the rules lack transparency, and fall short of what is necessary to protect human health and the environment, because of loopholes and how much discretion they give to the agency to waive requirements.

She argued neither waste facilities nor injection wells are required to be set far enough back from surface water.

"They can be located within 100 feet of surface waters, within a developed drinking-water well, for example, and the same is true for the injection wells," Hunter outlined. "And that's just not a great enough distance to be protective of surface and groundwater."

Hunter noted Ohio receives liquid oil and gas waste from Pennsylvania and West Virginia in addition to its own products. She contended one of the biggest problems with many injection wells is they do not require the waste to be properly characterized, meaning first responders who may be dealing with a leak or a spill might not know what kinds of chemicals or radioactivity they could be facing.

Silverio Caggiano, retired battalion chief for the Youngstown Fire Department, said if his team gets a call about a leak, it can be dangerous if they don't know what they could be exposed to. He pointed to what are known as "right-to-know" laws, where companies are required to offer information about what chemicals are used and stored in their facilities.

"On a fire-department and first-responder level, the reason why those Right to Know laws are placed in there was so I can prepare for something," Caggiano explained. "If XYZ company is going to put something in there, and they're going to be using this chemical, I have to figure out if I have the ability to detect it and mitigate it."

Groups emphasized the new rules require less oversight than current regulations. They urged the ODNR to hold the oil and gas industry accountable by requiring regular reporting and transparency.

LANSING, Mich. -- A public utility in Michigan is launching a pilot program to reduce its methane emissions.

Consumers Energy has what it calls the Enhanced Infrastructure Replacement Program, to identify and replace underperforming and outdated natural-gas pipelines, which emit methane when they are not working properly.

Terry DeDoes, senior public information director for the utility company, said it recently launched two new high-tech vehicles to better locate leaks.

He pointed out the new vehicles are a thousand times more sensitive than the current units, and will provide much more data.

"They will help us respond more quickly to issues on our natural-gas pipeline as well as make decisions about what pipeline should be replaced as a priority over other pipelines, as we're looking at reducing the methane emissions from our system," DeDoes explained.

The Biden administration recently announced its intent to restore and strengthen methane regulations rolled back by the former Trump administration, after world leaders came to a voluntary agreement about limiting methane emissions at the United Nations global climate-change conference this month.

DeDoes added with the dire warnings from international experts about the need to electrify, it's important for Consumers Energy and other utilities to really participate. He emphasized the company aims to go coal-free by 2025, and have 90% renewable energy by 2040.

"We plan on continuing that and ramping up those activities so that we can achieve net-zero methane emissions by 2030," DeDoes stated. "That's our goal."

Methane emissions have been linked to negative health outcomes for surrounding communities as well as greenhouse-gas accumulation and climate change. DeDoes contended it is important for companies to keep what he called a triple bottom line, and think about people and the planet in addition to their profits.

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Communities on the front lines of climate change are expected to benefit most from new rules in Oregon to move the state toward cleaner trucks.

The Oregon Environmental Commission approved the Advanced Clean Truck Rule and the Heavy-Duty Omnibus, or Low NOx Rule, which will both go into effect for 2025 model vehicles.

They guarantee an increasing percentage of trucks, buses and vans sold are zero-emission and pollution is reduced from diesel truck engines.

Victoria Paykar, Oregon transportation policy manager for the group Climate Solutions, said low-income neighborhoods and Black, Indigenous and communities of color are disproportionately burdened by air pollution.

"Due to historic racist policies in transportation and land use that ultimately have low-income and BIPOC communities being placed next to highly polluted areas, such as truck corridors and highways and ports, etc.," Paykar explained.

California created and adopted the Advanced Clean Truck rule and Oregon is the first state to follow its lead. Five other states, including Washington, are considering adopting the rule by the end of the year.

Aimée Okotie-Oyekan, environmental and climate justice coordinator for the NAACP of Eugene and Springfield, said the rules are long overdue, and noted they are sellers' mandates, so the state will need to go further for affected communities.

"Making sure that these zero-emission vehicles are actually bought and deployed in areas that are disproportionately burdened by diesel emission," Okotie-Oyekan outlined. "Just to make sure that we are targeting this investment in a reparative way, and righting the wrongs of the past."

In Oregon, the transportation sector accounts for 40% of greenhouse-gas emissions and nearly a quarter of those emissions come from heavy-duty trucks and buses.

Mary Peveto, executive director of Neighbors for Clean Air, said addressing emissions through these rules is crucial not only to meet the state's clean transportation goals, but because climate change already is affecting Oregonians' health.

"If we start looking at that community scale and how we can alleviate the most toxic and harmful pollutants, we actually also get the co-benefit of prioritizing what's going to help our climate," Peveto stated.