The role of science in EMF litigation

IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 61-70

  Warnquist, Mark A ^a,d,e,f   Yates, Russell E ^a,g,h   Neuens, Chad M ^a,b,c  

^a LeBoeuf Lomb Greene and MacRae   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^c CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f Fort Lewis College ^*  (United States)

^g FORT LEWIS COLLEGE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD LITIGATION; FRYE RULE; HILL CRITERIA ANALYSIS; PRUDENT AVOIDANCE; PUBLIC HEALTH; UNITED STATES;

EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH HAZARDS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MAGNETIC FIELDS; STANDARDS;

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS;

CANCER; CANCER RISK; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; WORKMAN COMPENSATION;

EID: 0030200422     PISSN: 07395175     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/51.511984     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Although this paper focuses on electric power frequency EMF, a few cases involving other electromagnetic frequencies are mentioned (i.e., radiofrequency EMF).
2. Strict product liability is a theory applied by many courts in which a seller may be held liable for any and all defective or hazardous products which cause injury, regardless of any negligence on the part of the seller. Restatement (Second) Torts, § 402A (1994). In EMF cases, plaintiffs have alleged that EMF is a defective or hazardous product.
3. See, 1993-1994 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; See, also, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Press Release (March 12, 1993); International Radiation Protection Assodation, International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee, Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields, Health Physics 58(1):113-122 (1990).
4. See, 1993-1994 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; See, also, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Press Release (March 12, 1993); International Radiation Protection Assodation, International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee, Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields, Health Physics 58(1):113-122 (1990).
5. Florida's standard is codified at the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations, Chapter 17-814 (1992); New York's standard is codified in the State of New York Public Service Commission's Statement of Interim Policy On Magnetic Fields of Major Electric Transmission Facilities (issued September 11, 1990).
6. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields - Background Paper (May 1989).
7. In re Public Service Company of Colorado, No. 894-028E (Colo. PUC Dec. 20, 1989). The Colorado PUC subsequently codified its prudent avoidance rule at Rule 18 of the Rules for Electric Utilities of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, 4 Code of Colorado Regulation 723-3.
8. See, e.g., Re Central Power & Light Co., 144 Pub. Util. Rptr. (PUR) 4th 528 (Tex. PUC 1993); Letter Notification Of Philadelphia Electric Company Regarding the Woodbourne-Heaton 230kV Line, Docket No. A-110550F055 (Order entered November 12, 1993); Re Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc., 151 Pub. Util. Rptr. (PUR) 4th 30, 43 (Ha. PUC 1994).
9. Final Order, Advance Plans for Construction of Facilities as Filed With the Commission for Review and Approval Pursuant to Section 196.491, Wisconsin Statutes, Before the Public Service Commission of the State of Wisconsin, Case No. 05-EP-6 (May 7, 1992).
10. Decision 93-11-013, Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's own motion to develop policies and procedures for addressing the potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities, Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Case No. I.91-01-012 (November 2, 1993).
11. Inquiry Into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development, The Right Honourable Sir Harry Gibbs, G.C.M.G., A.C., K.B.E. (February 1991).
12. Magnetfalt och eventuella halsorisker utfran vad vi vet i maj 1994. Boverket, Elsakerhetsverket, Socialstyrelsen, Statens Stralskyddsinstitut.
13. R.V. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, exporte Duddridge and others (1994).
14. Loaich v. National Parks and Wildlife Service and Shoalkaven City Counsel, 81LGERA270.
15. See, e.g , Heddin v. Delhi Pipeline, 522 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. 1975) (requiring a landowner to establish the "reasonableness" of public fear before the landowner may introduce testimony concerning said public fear and its effect on property values); Jennings v. Florida Power & Light, 485 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1986) (holding that a landowner need not establish that any alleged public fear of electric power lines is reasonable before introducing evidence concerning the effect of such fear on property values); and Criscuola v. Power Authority of the State of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 649, 602 N.Y.S.2d 588, 621 N.E.2d 1195 (1993) (same holding as in Jennings).
16. Fantigrassi v. Florida Power & Light Co., Case No. 88-23253 (Broward County Dist. Ct., decided February 14, 1992); Jordan v. Georgia Power Co., Case No. 91-4103SS296 (decided May 11, 1994) ; Zuidema v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Case No. 638222 (Cal.Super.Ct. decided April 30, 1993).
17. McCartin v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Case No. 699949 (Cal.Super.Ct. decided May 16, 1994).
18. Covalt v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Case No. G01 6256 (Cal. Ct. App. decided Feb. 18, 1995).
19. Zuidema v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Case No. 638222 (Cal.Super.Ct. decided April 30, 1993).
20. Bendure v. Kustom Signals, Case No. C-911173 (N.D.Cal. decided January 20, 1993).
21. Jordan v. Georgia Power et al., Case No. 91-4103SS296 (decided May 11, 1994).
22. In re Robert Pilisuk, Dec'd, Docket No. 922051, Claim No. T-448239 (Wash.Bd.Indus.Ins. Appeals).
23. In Re Robert Pilisuk, Dec'd, Case No. 94-2-23195 (Wash. Super. Ct. decided June 1, 1995).
24. Altoonian v. Atlantic Electric Co , Case No. CPM-L-1342 (N.J.Super.Ct.).
25. Glazer v. Florida Power & Light Co., Case No. 94-01279 (Fla.Cir.Ct. filed January 1994).
26. Marano v. Consolidated Edison Co., Case No. 129740/93 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. filed November 1993).
27. Johsz v. The Koll Company et al., Case No. 726765 (Cal.Super.Ct. filed May 18, 1994).
28. In re James Brewer, Claim No. T-743915/N364175 (Wash.Dept.Labor & Indust. 1993).
29. Kane v. Motorola, et al., Case No. 90 L 15256 (Cir.Ct. Cook County filed May 1994).
30. Microwave News, Vol. XIII, No. 4 (July/August 1993).
31. Fortune, November 13, 1995 at 48.
32. A.B. Hill, The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?, Proc. Royal Soc. Med. (1965).
33. Other organizations which have reviewed or commissioned reviews of the scientific literature on EMF include the: National Academy of Sciences; American Institute of Biological Sciences; Ontario Ministry of Health; New York State Powerlines Project Scientific Advisory Panel; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; White House Office of Technology Assessment; International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee Of The International Radiation Protection Association; National Radiological Protection Board of the United Kingdom; Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; Health Council of the Netherlands; Department of Energy of Ireland; Oak Ridge Associated Universities; Minister of Health, Melbourne, Australia; French National Institute of Health and Medical Research; Danish Ministry of Health; U. S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Arbetslivsinstitutet (Sweden).
34. 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
35. 293 F. at 1014.
36. Compare, e.g., United States v. Shorter, 809 F.2d 54 (D.C. Cir.) (applying the Frye rule), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817, 108 S. Ct. 71, 98 L.Ed.2d 35 (1987), with DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1990) (rejecting the Frye rule); see also e.g., Green, Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation, 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 643 (1992); Hanson, "James Alphonso Frye is Sixty-Five Years Old; Should He Retire?," 16 W. St. U.L. Rev. 357 (1989); Proposals for a Model Rule on the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence, 26 Jurimetrics J. 235 (1986).
37. Compare, e.g., United States v. Shorter, 809 F.2d 54 (D.C. Cir.) (applying the Frye rule), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817, 108 S. Ct. 71, 98 L.Ed.2d 35 (1987), with DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1990) (rejecting the Frye rule); see also e.g., Green, Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation, 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 643 (1992); Hanson, "James Alphonso Frye is Sixty-Five Years Old; Should He Retire?," 16 W. St. U.L. Rev. 357 (1989); Proposals for a Model Rule on the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence, 26 Jurimetrics J. 235 (1986).
38. Compare, e.g., United States v. Shorter, 809 F.2d 54 (D.C. Cir.) (applying the Frye rule), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817, 108 S. Ct. 71, 98 L.Ed.2d 35 (1987), with DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1990) (rejecting the Frye rule); see also e.g., Green, Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation, 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 643 (1992); Hanson, "James Alphonso Frye is Sixty-Five Years Old; Should He Retire?," 16 W. St. U.L. Rev. 357 (1989); Proposals for a Model Rule on the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence, 26 Jurimetrics J. 235 (1986).
39. _ U.S. _, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
40. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (1995).
41. Case No. 94-825-CIV-T-21E (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. of Fla. 1995).