Subject: Larry King Live TONIGHT - Wednesday, August 9 (Kelley)..
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 145724 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: Roy Beavers
--------------------------------------------------
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------171FA3F9D1090154638716AC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
.........From EMF-L.........
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Larry King Live TONIGHT - Wednesday, August 9
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:33:14 -0700
From: Libby Kelley
To: post-to-advisors@ccwti.org
If all goes well, the cell phone story will be covered on Larry King Live,
on CNN, tonight, Wednesday, August 9th: 9 p.m. East Coast Time 6 or 9 p.m.
Pacific Coast Time Subject matter is health effects of cell phones. The
program has been bumped 2-3 times already, but it seems like it's a go this
time.
Set your VCRs !!!
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/07/bp.00.html
fb546.jpg How Safe is That Cell
Phone in Your Ear Maryland Doctor Files $800M Lawsuit Against Motorola and
Verizon - August 7,
2000.url
Burden of Proof
How Safe is That Cell Phone in Your Ear? Maryland Doctor
Files $800M Lawsuit Against Motorola and Verizon
Aired August 7, 2000 - 12:30 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL
FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, CO-HOST: Today on BURDEN OF PROOF: How
safe is that cell phone in your ear? A Maryland doctor
has filed an $800 million
lawsuit against a cell phone maker and
telecommunications company, claiming it
caused his brain cancer.
ANNOUNCER: This is BURDEN OF PROOF with Greta Van
Susteren and
Roger Cossack.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hello, and welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF.
Two years ago, a malignant tumor was discovered behind
Chris Newman's right
ear. Newman, a neurologist, used a cell phone
extensively between 1992 and
1998 to communicate with his patients.
ROGER COSSACK, CO-HOST: According to his lawsuit, that
practice has
caused his cancer. The case, filed last week in
Baltimore's city circuit court,
names Motorola, Incorporated, and Verizon Communications
as defendants in an
$800 million lawsuit.
VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us today from New York is Louis
Slesin, who is the
editor of "Microwave News." And in Milwaukee, we're
joined by radiation
biologist John Moulder.
COSSACK: And here in Washington, Lindsay Pennington
(ph), Chris Newman's
attorney, Joanne Suder, and Laura Israel (ph). And in
the back, Nadim Aqbar
(ph) and Ginny Wilmuth (ph).
Joanne, I want to start right off with you. You have
filed this lawsuit. What is
the basis of this lawsuit? Why do you believe that using
cell phones has caused
Chris Newman's cancer?
JOANNE SUDER, ATTORNEY FOR CHRIS NEWMAN: Well, first of all,
there's absolutely no doubt in this case that his
cancerous tumor was directly
related to his cell phone use. It is anatomically
located in the exact location in his
brain where the radiation waves would enter his brain.
And unbeknownst to him,
throughout the years that he was using the phone, there
was evidence that was
available to the defendants that indicated several
things. Number one, that radio
frequent radiation is a danger when put through the
skull of a human being.
Number two, when you have that phenomenon -- I don't
know if you use a cell
phone -- where you're losing power and then you're
regaining power and you're
losing power -- it's during that period of time that the
power stations are surging
three and four times as much power into your brain in
order to help that phone
recover and bring back your ability to communicate.
VAN SUSTEREN: Joanne, you speak like a true advocate, a
lawyer, say there is
no doubt. But of course, the other side of the statement
is what -- the other side
of the story is what Motorola says. And we called and
asked them for a
statement, and just so that we have both sides
presented. They declined to
accept -- you know, to join us today.
Here's what Motorola says. "No one should have to endure
the misfortune that
has befallen Dr. Newman and his family. While their
desire to identify a cause of
his condition is understandable, there is no accepted
scientific basis to equate it
to the use of wireless telephones."
Is the sort of thrust of your lawsuit the fact that it's
the location of the original
tumor, of the cancer -- is that the -- is that your
strongest argument?
SUDER: In this particular case, not only do the -- does
the scientific evidence
support this causation, but Dr. Newman's own physicians
claim that the etiology
of his tumor is the RFRs that penetrated his brain. And
no matter what the
industry might say, or that they might say that their
telecommunications
engineers say, oncology and brain tumors is the
physician of -- it's the science of
medicine. It's not the science of telecommunications.
COSSACK: Joanne, let me just give you a couple of -- 6
people out of 100,000
get brain cancer. Now, why is it that not everyone who
uses cell phones get
brain cancer, and not everybody who gets brain cancer
has used a cell phone?
So why is it that your -- your client -- I mean, what --
what can you point to
that says that because of his use of the cell phone, he
got brain cancer, other
than the fact that the tumor is on that side of the
head? I mean, it has to be on
one or the other. It's on that side. I mean, what else
do you got?
SUDER: Let me explain one thing. Most adult brain
cancers in this country are
metastatic sites from other primary cancers, not
original sites. This is an original
situs cancer. The vast majority, someone has had cancer
perhaps...
COSSACK: Yeah, but that's why there's only 6 out of
every 100,000 that get
brain cancer.
SUDER: Well, the other thing you need to realize is that
the gestation period for a
brain tumor can be 10 years, and we don't have 10 years
of data on the -- since
the cell phone has become...
COSSACK: Yeah. I think that's what's going to be your
problem in this case.
SUDER: ... at high level.
SUDER: Let me -- before -- before -- we're going to talk
to two experts in a
moment, but let me just ask you something about -- tell
me a little bit about your
client. SUDER: My client is 41. He has five children.
He's married. He was an
honors graduate from Georgetown Medical School, did his
residency here in
D.C., was a practicing neurologist, had to use his cell
phone a lot, including that
original big brick Motorola phone. He traveled between
three hospitals, was in
private practice, so he had to be in continuous contact
with his patients. And
often -- his misfortune is often he used cell phones,
where he would lose
frequency and experience numerous times the phenomena of
the power having
to recover. And as it recovers, the -- Motorola's own
data will -- proves that at
that time that it's recovering, it's certainly radiating
an excess or a large amount
of power into the head.
VAN SUSTEREN: And we're going to take a break, and we're
going to talk about
it with two experts when we come back.
Up next: a closer look at the health risks associated
with cell phones and why the
experts disagree. Stay with us.
(BEGIN LEGAL BRIEF)
In Berlin, Prince Ernst August of Hanover, the husband
of Princess Caroline of
Monaco, has lost an appeal for the return of land
expropriated by Soviet
occupiers after World War II. The case of the land,
which consisted of 40
square miles and several castles, hinged on whether the
prince's grandfather was
a German or British citizen at the time the land was seized.
(END LEGAL BRIEF)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSSACK: Good news for our Internet-savvy viewers. You
can now watch
BURDEN OF PROOF live on the World Wide Web. Just log onto
cnn.com/burden. We now provide a live video feed Monday
through Friday at
12:30 PM Eastern time. And if you miss that live show,
the program is available
on the site at any time via video on demand. You can
also interact with our show
and even join our chat room.
VAN SUSTEREN: A Maryland doctor is suing Motorola and
Verizon
Communications, claiming that using his cell phone
caused his brain cancer.
The Food and Drug Administration says there's no
evidence that the radiation
from cell phones causes health problems, but the FDA has
stopped short of
affirming the phones are free of health risks.
John, let me go to you. You've heard Joanne talk about
Dr. Newman's lawsuit.
What is your reaction to the allegation that the cell
phone caused this cancer?
JOHN MOULDER, PROFESSOR OF RADIATION BIOLOGY: Well, I don't
want to comment on a specific law case, but on the
general issue of whether cell
phones cause brain cancer, the evidence to date -- both
the human evidence and
the animal evidence -- does not point to a link between
cell phones and brain
cancer.
VAN SUSTEREN: Have you done studies on this yourself?
MOULDER: My interest is risk assessment, looking at what
everyone has done,
from humans to cells to animals to biophysics, and ask
"Is there evidence that, in
this case, radio frequency radiation is connected with
brain cancer?" And also
"How hard have people looked?"
VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of this sort of weird
coincidence -- at
least, that's how I'd characterize it as a lay person --
that phone -- that there's the
original site of the cancer and the cell phone? What
does -- what do you make of
that?
MOULDER: It may very well be a coincidence. And by the
way, to correct one
piece of data, the primary brain cancer incidence in
this country is 6 per 100,000
per year, not per person. But brain cancer, primary
brain cancer, has to be
somewhere. The fact that it was on the side where the
phone was used could
very well be a coincidence.
COSSACK: Louis Slesin, you have done some studies, and
as editor of
"Microwave," you've been participated. Tell me what --
what you believe, in
terms of whether or not cell phones could possibly be
the cause of this brain
cancer.
LOUIS SLESIN, "MICROWAVE NEWS": Well, the short answer
is that we
don't know yet. There's been very, very little research.
Dr. Moulder just said,
you know, "How much do we know? How many studies have we
done?" And
the answer is not enough. There is an international
consensus now that we need
to do more research. We need to get to the bottom of
this problem.
VAN SUSTEREN: Louis, isn't it -- isn't it believed, in
fact, that the amount of
radiation that emits from a cell phone is just not
enough to cause this kind of
result?
MOULDER: I don't think there is a consensus on that at
all. The thing to
remember is that you're putting the antenna very close
to your brain, and about
50 to 70 percent of all the radiation coming off that
phone is going into the
human body of the user. So the question is, what does it
do there? And up to
recently, people might have said, "Well, it's benign,"
but more and more of the
studies that have been done show that there are
biological effects.
Now, whether or not there is a hazard is the next step,
and that's where we have
to go and look.
VAN SUSTEREN: John, you said that there's -- the studies
-- at least, if I
correctly repeat what you said -- don't show that the --
that they are dangerous.
But do the studies show conclusively that they are safe?
Can you rule out that
the cell phone was the cause of the brain cancer for Dr.
Newman or someone
similarly situated?
MOULDER: Unfortunately, that's something we can never
rule out. Science is
incapable of proving that something does not cause cancer.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you use a cell phone?
MOULDER: I use one. I don't own one, but I happily use
other people's.
(LAUGHTER)
COSSACK: During these -- during these tests and these --
that we've discussed,
how much -- how -- how -- what is the testing period in
terms of the use of a
cell phone? For example, suppose I was going to use a
cell phone a total of an
hour a day. Does that put me at risk, or do I need to
use it six hours a day or
four hours a day?
MOULDER: The truth is, if there's a -- if there really
is a risk, I don't think
anyone can predict what it's proportional to. But the
other things we know that
cause solid cancers take a very long time to do it. So
if I had to make a wild
guess, it would be your long-term use of a phone over
many, many years that
would matter, if anything does.
VAN SUSTEREN: Louis, as the editor of "Microwave News,"
are you in a
position to tell me whether or not that the cell phone
industry has been fully
cooperative in terms of supplying data? And I know that
Joanne will have
discovery, so she'll be able to get any data by a court
order. But have they been
forthright in terms of providing data on cell phone
safety, do you think?
SLESIN: In 1993, when this whole issue exploded on the
front page of the
newspapers, the industry made a commitment to do $25
million worth of studies
over the next five years to try and answer the question
of cell phones and brain
cancer risks. Unfortunately, very, very little research
has been done, and I think
that the industry did break faith with the American
public in terms of doing that
research. We in the press have asked repeatedly, "What
happened to the money?"
and no one wants to tell us. But I can tell you very
little of it went to real
research.
VAN SUSTEREN: Joanne, I've looked at your lawsuit, and
one of the things that
you, in essence, accuse them of -- the cell phone
industry, specifically, the
defendants here, is of not being candid with your
client. Do you have any
information to back that up?
SUDER: Well, I can tell you that I agree that the
industry let the public down,
and certainly did not follow up on evidence. Their own
study indicated a link
between brain cancer and cellular phone use -- their own
study.
COSSACK: What study -- what study is that?
SUDER: It was the study -- their $25 million study.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is that -- do you agree with that, Louis?
SLESIN: Well, there's some controversy over that. The
study has not been
published yet. The researcher is very equivocal about
it, but Dr. George Calder
(ph), who paid for the study, says that he found a link
between excess use of
cell phones and certain kinds of brain tumors. But until
the study is published, it's
very hard to draw any real conclusions.
COSSACK: Why hasn't the study been published?
SLESIN: Good question. It takes time for peer review,
and I think that some of
this stuff was released a bit early, before it had been
peer-reviewed. And we're
waiting for the journals to catch up.
COSSACK: All right, let's take a break.
Up next: If health experts can't agree on whether cell
phones cause a health risk,
how can plaintiffs' lawyers prove their case?
Stay with us.
(BEGIN Q&A)
Q: Why are a retired pro baseball umpire and a Canadian
architect suing Walt
Disney Co.?
A: They claim the company's sports complex is identical
to plans they proposed
to Disney officials in 1987.
(END Q&A)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSSACK: More than 90 million Americans use cell phones,
but a debate
continues in the medical community about potential
health risks. This summer,
the FDA announced plans to team up with the cell phone
industry to study the
issue.
Joanne, as a lawyer, you know you're going to have to --
if you're going to
convince this jury, you're going to have to convince
them that the cause of your
client's cancer came directly from -- and no other
source other than his use of a
cell phone. We've heard -- we've heard today about how
there doesn't seem to
be, at least right now, much evidence to indicate that.
How are you going to do
it?
SUDER: It is -- nobody out there with any credibility is
going to testify under
oath that the power stations, when the phones lose
power, emit a huge amount
of radiation into the head, which is...
COSSACK: And I'm going to give you that.
SUDER: ... disallowed by the government.
COSSACK: And I'm going to give you that. Now take that
statement and have it
in evidence, and now tell me how you prove that that
effect caused your client's
brain cancer.
SUDER: There are many studies who have linked the two.
It is the type of brain
cancer, the anatomical location. It is what the
oncologists say and what his
physicians say. The etiology of cancer is a matter for
medicine, not
telecommunications engineers.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me cut to the chase. Do you have a
doctor who's going to
come in and take an oath and say, "This phone caused
this cancer in this man"?
COSSACK: "And if he didn't use it, he wouldn't have had
brain cancer."
SUDER: There is no question that we will present
evidence from qualified
physicians that had he never used the cell phone in the
manner that he did, and
losing frequencies the way he did, that that particular
cancerous tumor would
not have happened.
VAN SUSTEREN: John, is there a difference in terms of
safety on these cell
phones between different models? And are signal
strengths, as Joanne talked
about -- is that an important issue?
MOULDER: Well, first of all, I don't think it's a matter
of safety because I don't
think there's any evidence that any of the phones are
hazardous. But the amount
of radio frequency radiation that different phones
produce is quite different. The
way you hold the phone can affect the exposure to your
head. And as alluded to
by the lawyer, the signal strength you have, whether you
-- if you're in a place
with a good signal, your phone emits less RF radiation
than if you're in a place
with a bad signal.
VAN SUSTEREN: What about the digital versus analog
telephones? Does that
make a difference?
MOULDER: Certainly, the older analog phones, which in
this case means from
four or five years ago, were considerably more powerful
than the modern digital
phones. I'm not sure about the modern analog phones or
the dual-mode phones
that can do either one.
COSSACK: Joanne, I want to go back again. You said that
you will have -- you
will be able to present evidence from physicians who
will come into your case
and say but for your client's use of that telephone, he
would have never had
brain cancer?
SUDER: Yes. Clearly. And...
COSSACK: And what are they going to base that on? We
have two experts who
say there's absolutely no evidence to indicate that there...
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I don't think they said there's no
evidence. I think that
they said it's a little bit inconclusive, if I -- you
know...
COSSACK: Let me -- let me...
(CROSSTALK)
COSSACK: Let me give you inconclusive. I'll take
inconclusive. Where are you
going to find someone who's going to say "This caused that"?
SUDER: Well, you have to -- well, let me give you a "for
instance."
COSSACK: All right. SUDER: Here we were, 20 years ago.
The cigarette
manufacturers were saying "There's no evidence that
smoking causes cancer.
There's absolutely no evidence. It's possible. It might
happen. The studies
haven't been done. So there's no evidence it's a hazard."
COSSACK: Right.
SUDER: And when someone says there's -- there's no
evidence or "We haven't
found the evidence," or what they're saying is "We need
to do more studies," I --
I'm saying that when you have an industry who should
have been accountable to
the public, should have done the industries (ph), talked
the FDA out of regulating
this, which the FDA should have all along, which would
have included reporting
of all adverse health effects -- when you say it's
inconclusive, as a citizen, that's
not comforting to me to know that 90 million people are
emitting radiation into
their head, and studies are inconclusive. "It could happen."
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me -- let me just -- let me,
before we lose -- before
the show ends, let me get back to Louis. Louis,
obviously -- I mean, I assume
that this is a lawsuit that has sent shivers into the
spines of people who own cell
phones. What's been the reaction in the industry to a
lawsuit like this?
SLESIN: Well, certainly, it has been noticed greatly,and
it takes us back to '93,
when the industry was terrified as the first round of
lawsuits. This is the next
generation, and there's more data. And despite what Dr.
Moulder says, we're not
talking about proving -- the impossibility of proving
the negative. There's a lot of
data out there suggestive of a problem. What a jury
might do with that evidence
is anyone's guess, at this point.
VAN SUSTEREN: And that's why this is in court.
But that's all the time we have for today. Thanks to our
guests, and thank you
for watching.
COSSACK: And we'll be back tomorrow with another edition
of BURDEN OF
PROOF. We'll see you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL
800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED
AT www.fdch.com
© 2000 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
--------------171FA3F9D1090154638716AC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
name="nsmail2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="nsmail2"
Libby Kelley
Executive Director
Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
aka ~ Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about
the FCC's Radiofrequency Radiation Health and Safety Rules
*** PLEASE RESPOND OUR POLL ON CELL PHONES and CELL TOWERS.
HELP US SPEAK "TRUTH TO POWER" !!
____________________________
Website: http://www.ccwti.org
Phone - 415-892-1863
Fax - 415-892-3108
Address:
936-B Seventh Street, # 206
Novato, California 94945
EMR NETWORK MEMBER http://www.emrnetwork.org
--------------171FA3F9D1090154638716AC--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com