| |
Some Interesting Cell Phone Facts
What can I use to
protect myself from cell phone cancer and EMF radiation
|
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court
refused Monday to consider throwing out class-action lawsuits that accuse
cellphone makers of failing to protect users from unsafe levels of radiation. The cell industry argued that because the phones comply with federal rules, the
lawsuits should be dismissed. Justices declined without comment to consider the
appeal.
Lawsuits were filed in state courts in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York
and Pennsylvania, seeking to force manufacturers to make phones safer. The
lawsuits call for headsets, on grounds that they could reduce risks of brain
tumors, and instructions for users.
The consumers who filed the lawsuits claim the industry violated various state
laws on consumer protection, product liability, negligence, and fraud, among
other things.
A divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said
that the lawsuits could proceed, and Nokia Inc., and other companies appealed to
the Supreme Court.
At issue for the court is whether federal standards regulating wireless phones —
including uniform national limits on radiation emissions — pre-empt the state
law claims.
Andrew McBride, Nokia's attorney, said that federal rules must be protected
because "a reliable and seamless interstate wireless network is a national
resource — essential to homeland security, public safety, and the economic
health of this country."
Harley Thomas Howell, the lawyer for those who filed the lawsuits, said that
"the fact that a portable wireless telephone is a regulated product does not
affect its status as a consumer product."
Many groups had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case, including the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. That group said companies which follow federal regulations
in design, manufacture, marketing, labeling and testing of products should not
face damages "under a patchwork of state tort laws."
The cases are Nokia Inc. v. Naquin, 05-198, and Cellco Partnership v Pinney,
05-207. |
|
