In 1968, Congress passed a law requiring the Food and Drug Administration to minimize people's exposure to wireless radiation, but the agency dropped the ball, according to a new petition filed by a coalition of consumer advocates.

The group wants the FDA to evaluate the public's exposure to radio-frequency radiation emitted by things such as cellphones, laptops, tablets, routers, game consoles and smart meters.

Doug Wood, founder and national director of Americans for Responsible Technology, spearheaded the petition.

"All those things that depend on and emit RF radiation fall under the purview of FDA," Wood explained. "It's the only agency right now, that has both the authority and the responsibility to protect the public health by trying to minimize those exposures as much as possible."

Wood wants the FDA to measure and analyze the public's exposure, especially kids in modern classrooms packed with wireless technology. Then the agency could develop and publicize best practices for minimizing exposure.

The FDA has said it relies on the industry RF radiation exposure standard developed in the 1980s and adopted in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission. The FDA considers safe any device coming in under the limit.

Wood argued the standard is outdated, considering multiple studies -- including a huge one in 2018 from the National Toxicology Program -- found RF radiation from cellphones led to cancer in rats.

"So they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place," Wood contended. "On the one hand, they've got a trillion-dollar worldwide industry, depending on them to not say this stuff is dangerous. And they've got a law from Congress saying you are required to protect public health by minimizing that exposure as much as possible."

Ellie Marks, director of the nonprofit California Brain Tumor Association, said her husband Alan is fighting brain cancer which developed right where he held his cellphone for many years.

"Had the FDA done their jobs and properly advised consumers, my husband and family would not have suffered as we have," Marks asserted. "And I know many others quite young who are now deceased from cancers related to their cellphone use."

The FDA has 180 days to evaluate the petition. If it is rejected, advocates would have the option to file suit.

New legislation would bring the insurance industry under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Supporters said the change would protect consumers from deceptive practices.

Tyler Staggs, an attorney in Portland, represented insurers for nearly 20 years. He said his law firm now advocates for consumers because of the insurance industry's growing unfairness. He cited such cases as a client left homeless when an insurer denied living expenses after a house fire. In another case, he added, a client was denied a claim after a brain injury from a car accident.

"Rather than paying the benefits that the insured paid for, the insurance company lowballs them and delays, to see if they can force them to take a settlement," Staggs explained.

Oregon's insurance industry is the only major industry in the state not subject to the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The bill is scheduled for a work session in the Senate Tuesday.

Staggs pointed out insurance companies argued the change will lead to more lawsuits and higher rates for consumers. He countered if companies are treating people fairly, rates will not have to increase.

"To say, well, 'We shouldn't have this enforcement mechanism because it's going to raise your rates,' really seems like disingenuous and it seems like blackmail," Staggs contended.

Staggs explained under the law, if the court finds a lawsuit to be unjustified, the insured would be responsible for covering the insurance company's legal fees, which protects insurers against baseless claims.

Mike Leib, vice president of Precision Body and Paint, an auto-body repair shop based in Beaverton, said insurers exploit consumers' lack of time and money to fight claims. He noted negotiating with insurers has become combative, as they routinely delay and deny legally required repair reimbursements.

"They are declining required repair procedures by manufacturers," Leib observed. "That can result in an unsafe repair, which can result in a death."

Both Leib and Staggs said insurance companies' quality of service has been worse since the pandemic, when they closed local offices and started depending more on artificial intelligence. They added the legislation would make insurance companies accountable to fairly evaluate claims.


get more stories like this via email

As Los Angeles starts to recover from the firestorm, people are looking for ways to harden their homes against future mega-blazes.

Experts said the massive destruction from the Palisades and Eaton fires has some people discouraged, thinking there is nothing they can do to defend their homes.

Michele Steinberg, wildfire division director for the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association, said in fact, homeowners can significantly reduce their risk.

"Home survival is down to making sure that the exterior of the home cannot carry ignition," Steinberg explained. "By that we mean non-combustible roofing, siding, good windows that aren't going to crack under heat."

The home ignition zone is the five-foot area around your structure, so anything within the perimeter, including decks, porches, and fences, needs to be made of non-combustible material. Screens on vents work to prevent embers from being sucked up into the home.

California's statewide building code is considered one of the strongest in the country. It specifies how buildings should be designed and maintained and how they should be sited with appropriate defensible space. Steinberg added the state helps people find fire-safe materials.

"They actually list products that meet those standards," Steinberg pointed out. "You can actually find manufacturers and people that have provided those products on the California State Fire Marshal's website."

Experts also cautioned against putting dry wood mulch or climbing vegetation up against the house.


get more stories like this via email

Coloradans with low bank balances would be on the hook for an extra $225 a year if Congress votes to roll back a new rule capping overdraft fees at $5. Fees had been as high as $35.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency behind the new rule, recently lost its offices and all of its 1,700 workers as the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, informally run by SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, went to work remaking the federal government.

Christine Chen Zinner, senior policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, said the bureau is critical for protecting American consumers.

"This is a law enforcement agency that protects everyday people when financial institutions cheat and defraud them," Chen Zinner explained. "In the short 14 years that it's been around, it has already recovered $21 billion for everyday people."

The bureau was set to regulate X, Musk's social media site, as it rolls out financial transactions similar to PayPal and Venmo. After workers were sent home, Musk posted "CFPB RIP." The financial industry also disagrees with the agency over what it called aggressive policing of wrongful home foreclosures and credit reports, fraudulent credit card charges and predatory junk fees.

The agency's fate could be decided in federal court. Nearly 77 million people voted for Trump.

Nearly 77 million people voted for Trump, and Andrea Kuwik, policy and research director for the Bell Policy Center, said many did so in part because they were struggling to make ends meet and believed a new administration would help bring down costs. She noted the bureau was set up precisely to protect people's pocketbooks and savings.

"There are a lot of folks that are struggling," Kuwik emphasized. "This entity has a proven track record of saving people money. Getting rid of that I think is counterproductive."

The 2008 subprime mortgage crash which led to the Great Recession showed what is at stake when financial institutions operate without real oversight. Zinner believes a strong and independent consumer protection agency which does not have to bend to the whims of politicians is essential.

"We simply can't have a fair market unless there is a strong enforcement agency there to enforce those laws and protect people," Zinner contended. "The Trump administration is now giving all sorts of financial companies a green light to defraud and gouge their customers."

Colorado's members of Congress could split over the issue. Senators Michael Bennett and John Hickenlooper have previously expressed support for the CFPB's work. But the House delegation is more mixed. Representative Lauren Boebert, and other Trump allies, are expected to support the rollback of the overdraft safeguard, while Representatives Jason Crow and Joe Neguse are likely to oppose it. A big unknown is Representative Gabe Evans, a Republican who won in a tough district.