Subject:  Re EMFs considered a pollution? (Karow) (Carney)... (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 10 Aug 1999 143414 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

.......Yes, Deb!!!  And -- considering the punitive angle -- there is no
way in hell that any power company or telecom company, etc., can claim
to "have had no knowledge" of possible health and property damages....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at: 
EMF-L archives can be found at: 
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................

........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST?????.............

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:09:41 -0600
From: Deb Carney 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: EMFs considered a pollution? (Karow)...

Here are the cites to a pollution case that will give you an idea of people's
common law rights to be free of the trespass and nuisance of various
pollutions.
This was salt that polluted a 10 mile stretch of underground aquifer in central
Kansas.  These cases went up to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.
Supreme Court denied cert.  I tried these cases with my father and the law
still stands.
567 F. Supp. 892 (D. Kan. 1983), aff'd, 858 F. 2d 1449 (10th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied.
     592 F. Supp. 967 (D. Kan. 1984),
     656 F. Supp. 316 (D. Kan. 1987),
     858 F. 2d 1449 (10th Cir. 1988)

             Subsequently, in a unanimous decision, the 10th Circuit upheld a
2nd verdict, this time from a Kansas Federal Jury
                                  that awarded additional special and punitive
damages.
                                        Scheufler v. General Host Corp. Cites

     881 F. Supp. 492 (D.Kan. 1995)
     881 F. Supp. 496 (D.Kan. 1995)
     895 F. Supp 1513 (D.Kan. 1995)
     895 F. Supp 1411 (D.Kan. 1995)
     895 F.Supp. 1416 (D.Kan. 1995)
     915 F.Supp. 236 (D.Kan. 1995), aff'd, 126 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1997)
     126 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1997)
One of the most important principles is that these kind of pollutions are
continuing abateable pollutions that add more pollution each day.  Industry
tried to argue that they had acquired a right to pollute by prescriptive
easement-since they had done it before and gotten away with it, they claimed
that the statute of limitations barred the farmers from suing.  The District
and Appellate Courts found for the farmers both times.

I definitely consider EMR a form of pollution.
Deb Carney

"Roy L. Beavers" wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 19:06:05 -0700
> From: Hans Karow 
> To: "'rbeavers@llion.org'" 
> Subject: EMFs considered a pollution?
>
> Roy and all:
>
> most likely I will be strugglling in another transmission line battle, if
> those lines are near residential and/or public areas, which I'll find out
> soon when I get a copy of the complete application to the utilities
> commission from the utility company.
>
> In the mean time I like to know from all of you: is anyone aware, whether
> EMfs (and EMRs) are considered a pollution? If so, please also give me
> references.
>
> Noise is considered pollution, so are effluents (sewage, toxic waste, etc),
> fumes and even intense lights (from nearby cities are considered pollution
> for astronomers) if certain levels/standrads are surpassed.
>
> Thanks,
> Hans


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com