San Francisco Requires Cell Phone Radiation Warnings 258
Lord Ender writes "Poor phone reception may soon be a selling point in San Francisco. A city ordinance was just approved which requires those selling phones to indicate the 'specific absorption rate' (SAR) caused by the radio transmitters in the phones. Cell phone industry groups opposed the law. The FCC already requires phones sold in the US to have SAR levels below 1.6 W/kg, though adverse health effects from such levels of radio exposure have never been conclusively demonstrated."
Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (Score:2, Interesting)
I acknowledge we don't know the long term effects of any mobile phone usage because we haven't been using them long enough, but at the same time I feel uneasy. Phone companies would stand to lose so much money and have their industries labeled alongside big tobacco, so I can't help but think they're pouring as much research into studies that "prove" phone radiation is harmless. Even if they couldn't convince people, at least they'd make the water murkier.
I dunno, my opinions on the ethics of big business have hit another all time low, for some reason.
Re:poor reception (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to Europe once (years ago), with my Nextel phone. I left it on quite a bit, so I could retrieve phone numbers, and call them from my local cell phone. The Nextel phone usually lasted for days if it was just turned on but I wasn't making calls. I had to charge it every night while I was there, because it was constantly seeking towers that didn't exist. After I got home, everything was back to normal. It could find towers, so it worked at lower power.
Threatened? (Score:1, Interesting)
I never understood why people consider "more information to consumers" a bad thing, and get all threatened by it. The economy is there to make CONSUMERS lives better.
Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how the medical imaging radiation an average person receives compares to the daily, hourly, sometime nigh-continuous exposure to the lower levels of radiation from a cell phone.
It doesn't. Trying to compare the two would be like trying to compare getting hit with a ping pong ball once a minute all day every day to getting shot with a 9mm pistol once a year. Look up the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation if this isn't making sense to you.
Re:Hey Gavin (Score:5, Interesting)
You think he doesn't know?
Honestly? Yes. I think he isn't capable of understanding even the simple definitions and explanations in the attached. I've talked to council members on various city councils over the years - there are some astoundingly stupid people in local government that lack knowledge of basic economics, let alone basic science.
Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd be cool if they could do something about the resolution of ultrasound. Any ultrasound experts out there...?
Move along,nothing to see here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Over here, the SAR has to be noted with the technical details for at least 10 years now. Not a cellphone less was sold.
Re:Dear Sir (Score:4, Interesting)
Banana Equivalent Dose of Cell Phone Radiation? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious what the measure of cell phone radiation exposure is in bananas?
From wikipedia:
"""
Many foods are naturally radioactive, and bananas are particularly so, due to the radioactive potassium-40 they contain. The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie, is typical). By comparing the exposure from these events to a banana equivalent dose, a more realistic assessment of the actual risk can sometimes be obtained.
The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems.
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose