Subject:  Re EMFs considered a pollution? (Karow) (Carney)... (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 10 Aug 1999 135508 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

.......One hellofa fine legal citation here!!!........
(Bill -- my lawyer -- take note.....)

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 12:45:40 -0600
From: Deb Carney 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: EMFs considered a pollution? (Karow)...

Yes, it is.  The Colorado Appeals Court has a case recognizing it as such and
attorney Bruce DeBoskey in Denver has brought several lawsuits on this basis.
Here is a case brought to my attention by the father of one of our
Genesee friends.  This is great precedent for us.
Van Wyk v. Public Service, Colorado Ct. of Appeals, No. 98 CA 2102 June
24, 1999.

I have the complete copy if anyone is interested

Listen to some of this language and think about what the broadcasters
are doing to us:
"Damages available on trespass and nuisance claims can include not only
diminution of market value or costs or restoration and loss of use of
the property, but also discomfort and annoyance to the property owner as
the occupant....A private nuisance is a non-tespassory invasion of
another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of his or her land."

Deb  (Attorney-at-law in Colorado......guru.....)

Breach of Contract-Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing-Failure to State Claim-PUC Approval-Inverse Condemnation,
Trespass and Nuisance-Taking of Private Property-Discomfort and Annoyance
to Property Owner as Occupant.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
appeal the dismissal of their action against Defendant Public Service
Company of Colorado ("PSCo"), for failure to state a claim on which relief
can be granted.

After the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") upgraded the Daniels Park
Electrical Transmission Line from 115 kilovolts to 230 kilovolts, property
owners within 300 feet of the line found that the lines make unreasonably
loud electrical noises, emit a high amount of radiation, and create an
electromagnetic field that encroaches on the property owners' land. PSCo's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted.

The Court of Appeals holds that the trial court erred by deciding that the
plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the PUC's approval of the upgrade. On
the inverse condemnation claim, the court holds that the plaintiffs have
averred material facts sufficient to withstand a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion.
A taking of property occurs where, as here, the allegations include noise,
radiation, an electromagnetic field, and economic damages for diminution
of property values and impaired use of the property. That claim should not
have been dismissed.

Also, the nuisance and trespass claims can be based
on discomfort and annoyance. To establish liability under a nuisance
theory, the plaintiffs need only show that PSCo possessed knowledge of the
affirmative act, i.e., increasing the voltage in the line. The judgment is
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

"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