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."
Will this be covered by the public option? (Score:3, Interesting)
So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up? If I leave my job, will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage?
On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio? Here's a hint, Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth. If I had to pick which antenna I'd rather have next to my head, it's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.
Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry, is there any actual independent science on this? (There probably, is but I am far too lazy to Google).
Re:the sky is falling! (Score:4, Interesting)
What this legislator is really saying is that he doesn't have anything better to do to justify his presence on the payroll. In these tough economic times useless asses like this should be given the boot, so that the money can go to somebody who can do something that is actually productive and useful. (Not just the cost of his salary, imagine the cost of implementation of this thing.)
Probably not a bad idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I'm very aware of how little power they radiate. It just didn't seem possible that it could affect cells, since it couldn't even change their temperature measurably. But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.
Re:Do not forget potato chips (Score:5, Interesting)
The carcinogen is acrylamide [wikipedia.org], and thanks to California's Prop 65 [wikipedia.org], you can find labels on potato chips, and in fast food joints that read: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer."
I always liked the "known to the State of California" part, like Maine isn't aware of carcinogens.
Re:insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to nit-pick a bit, 0.5% per year over 30 years is actually a little over 16%. But that was only in men - 0.2% per year in women. So that's an increase of ~11% in the overall population.
Personally, I'm leaning toward the "We're getting better at identifying brain tumors" camp, but 11% does seem like a lot and the large discrepancy between men and women is a little distressing.
Re:the sky is falling! (Score:1, Interesting)
Not according to the FDA [fda.gov] or the ACSH [acsh.org] or MIT, [mit.edu] among others. [snopes.com] On the other hand, überquack Mercola [mercola.com] and the holistic nutters [holisticmed.com] agree. Basically, the aspartame thing is just like the vaccine thing: scientists with evidence versus quacks who try to dress their bias up as information. Sure, aspartame tastes like dog shit, but (unless you have a certain rare genetic disorder), it isn't dangerous.
I wouldn't be so quick to follow SF (Score:2, Interesting)
As a Bay Area resident who's seen Newsom's "management" of San Francisco, I don't know that I'd be so quick to follow Newsom's lead. Not to mention that he has a history of making big annoucements... and failing to follow through. [latimes.com]
This isn't even a policy agenda that can be argued from a moral or social perspective -- it's based on erroneous beliefs with no scientific backing whatsoever. Not to mention that there are already agencies who test every damn cell phone when it comes out. Sounds to me like there's already legislation (albeit at the federal level) to handle this should cell phones prove to be brain cookers.
Re:objective measure (Score:4, Interesting)
We just need an SI unit for cancer-causing-probability. It should probably measure exposure, like rads. And dosage over time probably matters, too. So you could call it the "marb:" 1 marb = 1 filtered cigaratte over 1 day. So if you smoke 5 cigarettes a day, that's an exposure level of 5 marbs. Using a CRT probably adds a few millimarbs. Inhaling asbestos fibers adds several kilomarbs. There's also some micromarbs of background risk.