WASHINGTON, D.C. - Wireless safety advocates are calling on the Biden administration to develop a policy on safer cell-phone technology in the wake of a new ruling in federal court.

On Friday, a panel of judges in the D.C. Circuit ordered the Federal Communications Commission to justify its 2019 decision to stick with 25-year-old safety rules for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices and cell-phone towers.

The court ruled that the agency failed to properly consider the evidence on record before it upheld the standards. Devra Davis, PhD, is director of the Environmental Health Trust, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

"The record was thousands of pages of peer-reviewed evidence in addition to testimony from individuals who reported on their personal harm to electromagnetic illness and sensitivity to radiation," said Davis, "which were completely ignored by the FCC. "

Advocates point to a $30 million 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program, which found that male rats exposed to RF radiation developed brain and heart tumors.

The court, however, agreed with the FCC and found that the study could not be extrapolated to humans. The court also took no position on the safety of RF radiation.

The wireless industry says its products are safe.

Joel Moskowitz, PhD and director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley, noted that 240 scientists have signed a petition, called the International EMF Scientist Appeal, that said government agencies have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children.

"Basically," said Moskowitz, "the science shows a whole host of harmful effects, ranging from increased cancer risk, genetic damage, structural and functional changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, and neurological disorders."

The FCC now has to decide whether to comply or appeal. An FCC spokesperson, when asked about the court opinion, merely said the agency is reviewing the decision.

Super Bowl LVII is right around the corner, which means Arizona will see hefty spending and wide exposure because of the massive sporting event.

Danny Seiden, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the last time Arizona hosted the Super Bowl in 2015, it generated nearly $720 million for the state economy, attracted more than 120,000 out-of-state visitors just for the game and had more than 114 million viewers looking at Arizona.

Seiden noted it is a great showcase and economic driver for the state.

"The excitement for this Super Bowl is high," Seiden pointed out. "The excitement to come to a warm state like Arizona in February where you are going to see some sunshine is big, especially coupled with the Phoenix Open and everything else going on. So, I mean, I think we could see closer to $1 billion."

The Waste Management Phoenix Open will also be taking place Feb. 6-12. Seiden explained the mega events have a huge impact on the hospitality sector and called it a "huge boost of adrenaline" for local mom-and-pop shops disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seiden projects more than a million people are going to come through the state for the various mega events happening in February. He emphasized Arizona is a state which values and fosters meritocracy, and noted during the last Super Bowl, Apple was one of the big companies to establish roots in the state, and has grown its presence since then.

"We have over 70 CEOs right now signed up for CEO forums who are looking at Arizona for relocation and expansion of their company," Seiden reported. "That's all fantastic news, and those impacts go on far past just the Super Bowl week and Super Bowl year."

Seiden stressed now through March is an exciting time to be in Arizona. After the Waste Management Open, he added baseball spring training is expected to bring more than $600 million in economic impact.

A South Dakota legislative committee has begun discussions on a plan to repeal the state's grocery tax.

It has been a politically divisive issue amid calls to help residents still reeling from inflation. Nearly a dozen states impose sales taxes on food sold in supermarkets. Some have taken steps to pause or reduce taxes after major spikes in consumer prices.

Erik Nelson, associate state director of advocacy for AARP South Dakota, said the state should take similar action by eliminating its grocery tax. He pointed out there are many people out there, including older residents, who are still feeling the squeeze.

"Many times, South Dakota's low-income seniors may be having to choose between purchasing food and other vital necessities such as prescription drugs or heat," Nelson observed.

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem also supports the idea, but some members of her party plan to oppose the move when it comes up for votes. They, along with groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, argued the move could place pressure on the state budget because a key revenue source would be lost.

But Nelson suggested lawmakers need to take the long view, noting not being able to shop for enough food could be detrimental to the health outcomes of older South Dakotans.

"Seniors that have difficulty accessing and maintaining an adequate and nutritious diet," Nelson emphasized. "We of course recognize that access to healthy food is important to keeping us healthy."

South Dakota's tax on groceries is 4.5%. It is one of only three states to tax groceries at the full sales-tax rate. While concerns about the impact on revenue have been raised, Noem argued the state would still have enough available money in the general fund.

The health risks associated with gas-burning stoves have caused a recent stir and fears of a government ban on the appliances, but a Michigan lawmaker said it would be going too far.

Gas stoves are known to emit nitrogen dioxide, and without proper ventilation, studies have shown indoor air pollution can worsen, causing respiratory illnesses.

A recent study found 13% of childhood asthma cases are attributable to gas stove emissions.

Dr. John Levy, professor and chair of the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University, said the structure of a home can determine the risks.

"For many people, things like gas stoves could actually be their highest source of air pollution exposure," Levy pointed out. "That itself is important."

Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., said a prohibition on gas appliances would prevent Americans from choosing the oven which works best for them. His bill, The S.T.O.V.E. Act, or "Stop Trying to Obsessively Vilify Energy," would bar the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning gas stoves.

Natural gas is used in more than a third of homes nationwide, but not every household can easily swap out their appliances, especially renters and low-income households, where the majority of asthmatic children live.

Levy pointed out studies have shown improved ventilation in these homes pays for itself when it comes to asthma-related health care costs.

"If we're thinking about folks who maybe are on Medicaid, this actually could be a wise government investment to try to reduce health care costs and health burdens," Levy contended.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, offers homeowners tax incentives for swapping out gas stoves for electric induction versions, as well as other energy-efficient appliances.

Levy added he would like to see a renewed focus on gas stoves to improve building codes, especially in low-income housing and disadvantaged neighborhoods.