Powerline Hazard: The Beginning

In July, 1974 I was asked by the state of New York Public Service Commission (PSC) to testify in a hearing on the safety of high-voltage powerlines regarding what I perceived to be their health risks. Dr. Robert Becker, who was my chief, and I submitted written testimony that was served on the power companies in October, 1974 (Read testimony Becker-1; Marino-1).

The reports of experts hired by the power companies were distributed in November, 1975; at the time the PSC served the companies with an updated version of our testimonies (Read testimony Becker-2; Marino-2).

In 1976 Dr. Becker was cross-examined by the companies for 4 days and I was cross-examined for 10 days. The companies then served rebuttal testimony in which their experts attacked our testimonies. In response, the PSC served the companies with my rebuttal testimony in which I attacked their experts (Read testimony Marino-3). I was cross-examined for 3 additional days.

After the testimony phase of the hearing was finished, lawyers for the power companies and for the staff of the Public Service Commission filed legal briefs in an attempt to persuade the Commission that their respective views of the evidence were correct. The brief of the staff of the PSC argued that powerline electromagnetic fields would affect human health, but I thought a stronger position was warranted. Consequently, representing myself, I submitted a legal brief in the summer of 1977 in which I summarized the scientific evidence and drew legal conclusions (Read brief Marino-4).

The lawyers for the companies submitted a brief in which they attacked my brief. Consequently, in September, 1977 I submitted a reply brief which attacked their brief (Read brief Marino-5).

The PSC procedure allowed still another round of briefs, so in February, 1978 I submitted a brief on exceptions (Read brief Marino-6).

 

How to Examine and Cross-Examine an Expert in a Toxic-Tort Case

Judges and lawyers have traditionally received essentially no training in science. Not surprisingly, the courts struggled to develop rules of evidence for governing scientific testimony, and did no better than to presume that any doctor had knowledge he claimed. The toxic tort cause of action developed as an extension of medical malpractice in the sense that the expert largely based his knowledge claims on his training and experience regarding the kind of disease suffered by the plaintiff. In Daubert the Supreme court redefined the law of scientific evidence when it held that the expert’s knowledge must be a product of the scientific method. The course has now been charted by which scientific knowledge can enter the mainstream of society. Application of the new paradigm now awaits the development of able counsel.
Read Law Review article.

 

Patent: Method for Analyzing Complex Signals

Many signals in nature that appear to be bewilderingly complex can be mined for valuable information if proper methods of analysis are employed. Traditionally, simple linear methods have been used to analyze biological signals, irrespective of their complexity, with the result that important information they contained was obscured. The electroencephalogram, a time record of the electrical activity of the brain, is a good example of a biological signal that contains information which has not been extracted because of the inadequacy of the methods of analysis. I patented a method by which such information could be extracted from recorded signals.
Read the patent.