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The lawsuit claims the Federal Communications Commission standards are outdated and pointed to a government study showing exposure to cellphone radiation can cause brain and heart tumors in rats.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

Joel Moskowitz PhD, 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.

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.

Policy analysts have been sounding the alarm on the Department of Education's ability to reach and engage with low-income, disadvantaged and older student loan borrowers in Nevada and around the country.

With massive layoffs at the agency and the sunsetting of the Biden administration's income-driven repayment plan, the efforts will only get harder.

Sarah Sattelmeyer, education, opportunity and mobility project director for the progressive think tank New America, said the department recently closed applications for all income-driven repayment plans and it has left borrowers looking for answers and resources.

"Right now, there are a lot of things going on in terms of slashing federal workers, slashing contracts, sort of rethinking and pulling money out of programs," Sattelmeyer pointed out. "It is hard to serve people when you cut staff and resources in a system that is already underfunded. "

Biden's Saving for a Valuable Education plan, which offered millions of borrowers lower monthly payments and a shorter timeline for repayment is among the programs stuck in limbo. President Donald Trump has expressed disdain for the plan and is unlikely to extend it. A report by New America found the current situation can be especially unsettling for borrowers over 60, who are often caregivers for family members.

Tia Caldwell, a former analyst for New America, noted when older borrowers are approaching retirement age and are still having to repay their college debt, it can mean tough choices between paying their loans or covering everyday essentials. She emphasized if borrowers fall behind on their loans, the government can garnish their wages and even withhold some of their Social Security benefits.

"This affects more than just the individual, because they are very embedded with their community," Caldwell explained. "We see that it looks like around 85% of older borrowers have children and so of course if your parent is losing their tax refunds or having their Social Security garnished, that is going to affect you too."

Caldwell stressed older borrowers are parents, caregivers and supportive members of their communities. She and others at New America are calling on the federal government to streamline the process for loan forgiveness when higher-ed institutions close or borrowers become disabled. They also encouraged the government to keep income-driven repayment plans and limit harsh penalties for those who default.


get more stories like this via email