Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones 314
Cytalk writes "A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim. The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no US states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation’s first to require the warnings."
the sky is falling! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.
Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.
.
insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not forget potato chips (Score:5, Insightful)
You always need to be first! (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.
I am all for safety, but lets get real here. How long have cell phones been around? Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units. If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance. I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.
Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists. The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner. If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology. If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.
There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.
Re:Where's the Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah, since when are politicians logical, scientifically minded people? This is not exactly the age of Realpolitik (in its original meaning of practical, realistic, and effective; rather than it's more recent meaning of coercive, heavy handed, and amoral). The choices of our governments are based on religion, ideology, and vote pandering; much more so than they are based on what will actually accomplish our goals.
As an example, it has been shown several times that handing out needles to IV drug users not only reduces disease but also, in the long run, reduces the number of addicts (since the users are meeting with trained counselors on a weekly basic to get their needles). Its even been shown to save money, since these users don't end up in the hospital later unable to pay their bills. Yet, any area that tries to start a program of supplying needles is denigrated and attacked. People say they are 'enabling' the users, when in fact their course of action has been shown effective in reducing drug use.
Diabolical! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, now that you mention it, that's not a bad plan if you're a tobacco company. I can't tell you how many times when I try to get friends to stop smoking, they fall back on excuses like, "Well, eventually something is going to kill me..." or "Everything causes cancer..."
Talk about lame rationalization. Still, if they start slapping "This may cause cancer!" labels on stuff that has been proven, in fact, not to cause cancer, it's just more ammunition. If you're a tobacco company, that might be a viable strategy. Get cancer labels on everything so that no one will believe the labels on anything.
Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen. What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign. Legitimately, too, since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic, like gasoline and paint. Now everyone just ignores the signs because they're everywhere.
If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like "On these premises there's something really, really carcinogenic. We're not kidding, either. Don't push your luck."
NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? (Score:3, Insightful)
"There probably ought to be a warning"
No there shouldn't and the California debacle you've ignored the discussion of in this thread proves why.
"The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer."
CITE THEM.
RIGHT NOW. Unless you do so, you will be added to the rolls of those who try to make shit up and presume no on will call themon it.
You've bee called, defend your already debunked assertions or admit you can't.
"I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. "
They are.
"But the sheer number of studies that are coming out "
THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.
You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.
Re:You always need to be first! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Vague warnings (Score:3, Insightful)
Even better, “Asphyxiation hazard – Dangerous low-oxygen conditions may occur if LN2 tanks leak. Oxygen monitors must be used at all times.”
Simple, descriptive, and complete: tells exactly what the danger is, when it may occur, and what precautions are necessary to ensure the workers’ safety.
Of course, nobody hired me to write the warning labels...
Re:No proof? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would posit that using Twitter causes brain damage at a far faster rate and in greater numbers of users then cell phones.
Re:Where's the Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're taking cues from the global warming alarmists.
SHOW US THE DATA.
Re:the sky is falling! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well hey, Linda used a cell phone and she died of cancer! Funny how a cell phone can cause a cancer on your gall bladder...
TFA said something about studies showing a link, but I haven't read about any of those studies. The ones I've read about showed no correlation at all. Odd that TFA mentioned studies showing a link but didn't point to a single one.
Re:the sky is falling! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.
Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning. .
I agree. A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.
What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against.
---
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I'm definitely guessing it isn't probable and that I'll need a lot more FACTS before I'm going to believe this...
Why?
The big bang is still hitting us with EMR. The sun. Power lines. Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet. Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere. And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.
Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds. That means it cannot damage any molecules in your body, including DNA.
----
As it stands, I'm much more worried about our diet, our environment, our politics, our use of resources, and things like Cigarettes.... but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.
What is more likely to kill you? Cell phone (maybe) caused brain tumors (as rare as that probably is, if at all), or congestive heart failure from poor diet. Or what about a car accident? Hell, we're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously, despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.
Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries.
Too many warnings (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone. If it's small enough, I dare say we should have no warnings anyways. Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks.
"So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me? It's just another pointless government thing, like with cell phones."
The test (Score:3, Insightful)
Test of hypothesis: There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours, that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations. This, thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we're bathed in worldwide. We'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe, but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer, as a result of the characteristics here, such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head.
Results: There isn't any. Or if there is an effect, it's very very small, such that 'there isn't any' is still valid for all practical purposes. Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best, what few studies their are haven't showed anything worth more study, and we're a long way from any causal proof. Orders of magnitude smaller than gee, I don't know, exposure to actual chemical carcinogens, sunlight and bad lifestyle?
(EMF could be carinogenic, I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer, due to the sheer energies involved, and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades.)
Re:NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful. You can type almost anything into a search engine (and PubMed is a search engine) and get back a bunch of hits. Some of them will even be related, and sound scary. The number of hits you get is strongly affected by the amount of hype around an issue.
Scientific literature is like a massive debate. On any given issue you'll find a bunch of different viewpoints and a bunch of different proponents of each, some with more and some with less, evidence. Eventually the whole thing trends towards the right answer, but monitoring who is yelling the most is definitely not the right way to predict what that will be.
Re:Do not forget potato chips (Score:5, Insightful)
The same way it's known to the State of California that having a clip capacity over 10 bullets will result in gang violence and mayhem, that actors make the best governors, and that gay marriage is an abomination.
no consensus among scientists (Score:3, Insightful)
there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]
That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one. There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese. There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer. And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.
There's no consensus, because it is false.
Doing these things without any proof... (Score:4, Insightful)
Before long, every male will be labeled as a sex offender, every food will warn of cancer or other health issues, every politician will have a scarlet letter, etc...
Stop the insanity now by stopping this grandstanding moron on a soap box.
Then get him and his cronies kicked out of office.
Re:There's nothing new about this (Score:3, Insightful)
You can sue for anything. Winning the suit is something else entirely.
Re:the sky is falling! (Score:2, Insightful)
Because as we know, all radiation is the same thing. No matter what kind it is, it will penetrate into the deepest parts of your body, destroy your DNA, give you cancer, turn your cat into a mutant, eat all the food in your fridge, steal your girlfriend, and spread nasty rumors about the size of your genitals. Therefore it is imperative to avoid all radiation, including gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, infrared, and visible light!
A little bit of common sense goes a long way, but real conclusions require thought.
Re:the sky is falling! (Score:3, Insightful)
WARNING: IF YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES, OR DO NOT BELIEVE YOU DO, BUT HAVE BEEN TOLD YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES, READING THIS THREAD MAY TRIGGER A STRANGE UNEXPLAINED PSYCHOTIC RESPONSE INVOLVING THE KILLING OF FRIENDS AND STRANGERS, AND POSSIBLY YOURSELF. READER BEWARE! (This is explained later)
You're an Anonymous Coward, and I don't normally reply to these because for all I know i'm just talking into thin air... I have no way of knowing if you understood or are even listening anymore.
But because it is important for me to clear this up, I will reply.
----
The REASON, which I thought was quite clear in my post, that there doesn't need to be a warning label is that there is NO SIGNIFICANT FACTS to make the risk any more than zero.
I'm not in denial here, I'm a scientist. I love facts and would gladly appreciate being provided with reliable sources to show me why I should get rid of my cell. Believe me, I want to know these things too.
But with that said, if everything tells me its ok and NOTHING tells me it isn't, well its hard to justify a warning for that. If that were the case, you'd have to put warnings on EVERYTHING simply because we can imagine a possibility, with or without any necessity for EVIDENCE.
I make some words capital for a reason, because they are important. It is 'possible' for my response in this to somehow trigger a psychotic experience in a reader, who may then go on a killing rampage ending in suicide... Do I need to put a warning on this post?
WARNING: READING ENGLISH TEXT IN BLACK FONT WITH WHITE BACKGROUND, PROJECTED FROM LCD AND CRT MONITORS MAY LEAD TO PERMANENT VISION IMPAIRMENT. READ WITH CAUTION, MY RESPONSE MAY BE HURTING YOU.
WARNING: READING WHILE DRINKING OR CONSUMING EDIBLES MAY BE DANGEROUS; BY DISTRACTION, ONE MAY ENCOUNTER A SITUATION OF INHALATION OF FLUID AND DRWON, OR POSSIBLY NOT FULLY MASTICATE THE CONSUMABLE, CREATING A CHOKING HAZARD. IF YOU ARE EATING, READ WITH CAUTION.
---
And while some of the sarcastic examples I gave may actually have even a smidgeon of actual fact to validate them (note the cellphone/cancer data does not exist), they hardly necessitate a warning label.