Cell Phones and Tumors: The Science Becomes Clearer

Perhaps this story didn’t make it into the American news because we were distracted by the columns and columns of newsprint and the hours and hours of television time devoted to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama running for President. And to tell the truth, I’m surprised I ran across it now.

            Back in October an Italian court ruled that a businessman’s brain tumor was caused by his extensive use of cell phones. The man, Innocenzo Marcolini, developed the tumor after long and intense use. He used a cell phone for five to six hours a day for 12 years. The tumor developed on the left side of his head. He usually held the phones in his left hand while he took notes with his right.

            Now, granted that Marcolini’s use of a cell phone was extreme, the rest of us should take caution. Most commonly we hear that the science connecting the use of cell phones and brain tumors is inconclusive. The Reuters article where I got this story even repeats the meme. The court in Italy ruled, however, that the scientific evidence supported the claim of Marcolini, that his tumor was caused by the cell phones.

            Indeed, the reason that the science is inconclusive may be for the same reason that for years the science connecting cigarettes and lung cancer was inconclusive, because industry made the science inconclusive. For years companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds sponsored “science” that showed inconclusive connections between their products and heart disease, cancer, and other ailments. Cell phone companies are just following in their footsteps. This study[i] recently published in Open Environmental Sciences analyzed the scientific studies performed on cell phones. The study determined that industry sponsored studies found inconclusive or weak evidence linking cell phones and brain tumors, while independent studies linked tumors and cell phone use.

            As far as tobacco goes, it is just today, decades after the science should have been concluded and accepted about the dangers of smoking, that a judge has ordered the large tobacco companies to admit that they lied about their products. Let’s hope it doesn’t take as long to achieve clarity about cell phones and their hazards.

---

[i] Spiridione Garbisa, et al. "Mobile Phones And Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis Of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies." Open Environmental Sciences 6.(2012): 1-12. Environment Complete. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Are Folks Being NIMBYs When They Say To Keep the Fracking Out of Their Town?

One of the things that I’ve heard from those inside the environmental movement is that progress on the environmental front at the federal level is not promising. With gridlock the status quo in Congress and GOP lead opposition to environmental regulation, any environmental success in Washington would be long fought and quite possibly fruitless.

            Those in the environmental movement have encouraged folks to work on the state and local levels, where people can more directly take charge of their lives and the environment around them. That’s what makes this story out of Colorado so intriguing. Not wanting fracking type gas drilling to disturb their parks, schools, and neighborhoods, the residents of Longmont Colorado banned fracking in their town.

Now it looks like they are in for a plethora of lawsuits challenging their right to restrict the controversial extraction process. The state of Colorado says that it, not local governments, has the right to regulate drilling. The energy companies claim that the ban infringes on their property rights.

Certainly local municipalities cannot enact laws that run counter to state and federal laws. No matter how many crack addicts live in a town, they cannot make cocaine legal in opposition to state and federal statutes. On the other hand, people in a community should have the right to live in a town that is unmolested by the presence of large-scale drilling, especially considering the health concerns that have been associated with fracking.

Patriot Coal Announces They Are Ending Mountaintop Removal

This news is a wonderful surprise. Patriot Coal announced today that they are ending their practice of mountaintop removal. The coal mining company said that its decision came as part of their agreement over a water pollution lawsuit with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.

Patriot Coal is to be applauded. Credit is due as well to the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and other organizations that have been working with legislators, state agencies, and the courts to ensure that the remaining mountains of Appalachia continue to stand; the waters of those mountains run clean and clear; and the residents of the eastern coalfields can live lives unharmed by the ailments associated with mountaintop removal.

            Mountaintop removal by Patriot Coal is not ending today. The company will be phasing out mountaintop mining production over the next three to four years. But all things considered, the news is still good.

Robert Murray Has a Tantrum Over Obama's Election and 156 People Lose Their Jobs

Following through as he had threatened to do earlier, Robert E. Murray has laid off 156 employees of his mining company, Murray Energy. Other business people have made similar threats concerning Obama’s reelection. I only know of this one instance with Murray Energy in which those threats have been made real.

On this Fox Business show, in a rather besieged tone, Murray said that he anticipates reduced economic activity and reduced power use, although current trends indicate an expanding economy with greater energy use. He went on to call the president a liar and “unfit to guide this country.”

            As I have blogged before, coal is in decline, but not because of Barack Obama. The market for coal has been diminished by falling gas prices. As well, in Appalachia, most of the easily mined (and therefore cheap) coal has already been shipped off to power plants. Whoever occupies the Oval Office cannot change these two facts. Murray is correct in asserting that Romney would most likely loosen restrictions on coal mining, as was done by George W. Bush. Presently, however, a change in regulations would have little effect on the coal market or the ability of the mining companies to extract coal.

If anything, this is purely a political temper tantrum, and one that has real people hurting. As the folks who got laid off point out, nothing has changed in the last few days, besides the election, that would have any bearing on the ability of Murray Energy to dig up coal and sell it. There is no real economic reason for the layoffs. It is merely headline grabbing political theatre.

Murray has demonstrated before that he is not above using his employees for political purposes. Earlier this year he required miners at one of his mines to attend a Romney rally, an event for which they were not paid. Murray Energy also pressured employees to donate to their GOP supporting political action committee, with the company tracking who was and who was not giving money to the PAC.

Because the workers were “at will” employees, the layoffs seem to be legal. I have a hard time with this. An America that is supposed to honor the people who work to put food on their tables and care for their children should not allow those people to lose their jobs because the CEO of their company decides to have a post election hissy fit.