Cell Phone Group Sues San Francisco Over Radiation Law 242
crimeandpunishment writes "The wireless industry wants to put San Francisco's cell phone radiation law on hold. An industry trade group filed a lawsuit Friday trying to stop the law, which requires cell phone stores to display how much radio energy each phone emits. The group says the law, which is the first of its kind in the country, supersedes the authority of the Federal Communications Commission, and will mislead consumers into thinking one phone is safer than another."
Re:What science is behind this? (Score:5, Interesting)
cellphone laws (Score:5, Interesting)
A law requiring all cellphones to have a warning label:
"use of this device while driving a motor vehicle is dangerous, and against the law in most states"
Or something, since cellphones have killed more people that way than by the radiation they emit.
Re:It's non-ionizing and harmless (Score:5, Interesting)
There's some evidence that high frequency noise or high frequency RF has biological effects even if it's non-ionizing. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_pest_control [wikipedia.org]
"A 2002 study by Genesis Laboratories Inc. does lend some credence to the ability of electronic repellent devices to repel certain pests in controlled environments. Preliminary study of white-footed mice behavior in the test apparatus demonstrated a significant preference for the non-activated chamber among both sexes."
Also, how do you think your microwave oven works? It uses dielectric heating to rapidly vibrate (and thereby heat) the water molecules in food. Guess what - dielectric heating works on you too, and there is no cut-off range; even low frequency RF has some dielectric heating effect on the water and some body tissues.
And dielectric heating can cause cataracts.
Just throwing some actual facts into this discussion.
Re:What science is behind this? (Score:1, Interesting)
[...] if Greenpeace hadn't killed nuclear power plants in 70's.
Greenpeace never "killed nuclear power plants in the 70's".
The Three Mile Island accident however did so... in the US at least.
misleading? (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, it would be misleiding if it wasn't true, but lower radiation also means safer to use... The real effect of cellphones has yet to be determined, it will take at least 2 decades before the real consequences will be known... And let's not forget, we already know from the past that a test that was said there is no harm, later revealed to be disasterous..
Re:What science is behind this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar panels were not viable for any widespread usage back in the 70's (sic). They are only now starting to become viable, and even then only with significant government subsidies
Photovoltaic solar panels for power generation? Sure... Solar panels to heat/cool your home and your water? That science has been around for hundreds of years...
Re:What science is behind this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have time to find a citation at the moment, but I'll lay out the math for you.
[...]
Now realize that instead [...] Now realize that their power [...]
Realize that the average [...]
Sir, your post is simply WILD SPECULATION, nothing else. Now realize that Greenpace has been traditionally quite strong in France for example (and still is). And look how they destroyed the nuclear industry in France...
Now lets look at Germany, that started investing in green technologies decades ago. They were one of the few countries with a long term vision of becoming world leaders in these technologies as demand for them grows. Today, along with Japan, they are there, and already started to reap the benefits.
The most aggravating part of your post is that you begin your sentences with "Realize that..." You sound like the githzeray in NWN2 (though she started with the annoying "Know that..." The point is, that you sound like a religious nutcase, with hating Greenpeace being at the center of your religion.
The parent asked for proof... now if you consider pulling wild stuff out of your ass as proof, than your signature is quite ironic indeed ("Wikipedia, the concept that persistent opinions represent facts").
Bullocks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullocks! Customers do have a right to this information! Companies can use the label to educate by just showing a comparison of how much radiation a person gets from:
If Companies cannot spin this, it is their own damn fault. Not the consumers. Information wants to be FREEEEEEE and this is an excellent way to *start* educating the public. With the precedent that Phillip-Morris set of hiding information, if the cell phone manufacturers fight this too hard, things will be much worse for them. They will appear to be hiding something regardless of the truth of the situation.
Re:What science is behind this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What science is behind this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about your statement.
Thanks for the suggestion but I actually thought about it before (and while) making it. (And yet I didn't reach the same conclusion as you - how could such a thing happen unless I wasn't thinking???)
If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself.
You don't have to list all the real or imagined hazards or contents and imagined non-contents. You have to list the particular qualities that the regulators / legislators have identified as having to be identified. As far as I can tell that's not a particularly extensive list. The real issue is what you have against people knowing the SAR. Is it really just the appalling prospect that they might make choices on a basis you consider to be irrational?
At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.
As long as this, rather easily met, requirement applies equally to all producers of cell phones I don't understand what you're going with that.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.
"not having a twin", "kissing", and "under-arm shaving" are notable.
Re:cellphone laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Because if you use it while you're driving, it might explode or something? Otherwise, the cell phones don't kill anybody. The drivers are the ones that kill other people.
Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I want to know the power output of my phone - and the selectivity and sensitivity of the receiver as well.
At least with this law, consumers will have some indication of which phones are the most likely to drop calls. By measuring the emitted radiation (as opposed to the power put into the antenna), you get a better idea of how far from a cell tower you can be and still make calls.
Sure, maybe it does cause cancer; too bad there isn't any good scientific study showing such. If there was, Californians would have a lot bigger problems than warning labels.