San Francisco Abandons Mobile Phone Radiation Labels 132
judgecorp writes "The city of San Francisco has abandoned a law proposed in 2010 which would have required mobile phones to be labelled with their radiation level. Mobile phone industry body the CTIA fought the bill in court, arguing that there is not enough evidence of harm. The city is not convinced phones are safe — it says its decision to abandon the law is simply based on the legal costs."
can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't figure out what is good and bad data with this topic. Seems like everything I read is spin.
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Insightful)
The data:
There has not been a larger increase in head cancers over the past thirty years despite a more than billion-fold increase in mobile phone use. This means that if there is an effect, it is too small to worry about.
Re: (Score:1)
Precisely, please mod parent up.
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget about Wi-Fi.
We are beyond the point where studies make sense.
I propose a study to figure out how to keep assholes from spreading disinformation about RF radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can fight disinformation with disinformation after all...
Re: (Score:2)
There has not been a larger increase in head cancers over the past thirty years despite a more than billion-fold increase in mobile phone use.
...and this hasn't surprised anybody who knows anything about physics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't figure out what is good and bad data with this topic. Seems like everything I read is spin.
Luckily, now that the labeling has been abandoned, you don't know your dosage level anyway, so no need to worry!
Honestly, that's what most annoys me about these sorts of cases(this, GMO labelling, 'organic' labeling, etc.) The evidence for harm or harmlessness is often rather equivocal; but the relevant trade association pressure groups scream like babies at the idea that customers would even be in the position to make an informed decision(foolish or otherwise).
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, that's what most annoys me about these sorts of cases(this, GMO labelling, 'organic' labeling, etc.) The evidence for harm or harmlessness is often rather equivocal; but the relevant trade association pressure groups scream like babies at the idea that customers would even be in the position to make an informed decision(foolish or otherwise).
Because it's ludicrous. Consider the same idea applied to a packaged cookie: "our whole wheat cookies contain less than 0.0001% arsenic, less than 1 picogram of lead, fewer than 15 anthrax spores per cookie, no more than 150 million viable microbes, below 72,000,000 mold spores," etc. The world is filled with trace amounts of stuff that humanity has ingested since the dawn of our species. It's only recently that we've even been able to recognize and measure it. And those are scientifically proven harmful i
Re: (Score:2)
You are right - we should let any nutjob group put useless information on our products. Each cell phone can come with a 50-page list of grievances. PETA can put whether animals were used in it's production. Al Gore can slap the carbon footprint on there. Greenpeace can list the natural resources used on there, and score the phone for it's environmental impact. UNICEF can score it for child welfare. Then of course, you will have religious groups who want to score it for thetan count and whatnot. (Thank you,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that the SAR numbers are already required to be calculated for the handset to pass FCC approval, and the FCC already has an SAR limit for sale-able devices, it seems like mandating that the numbers be included in the documentation(rather than by grabbing the FCC ID and grovelling through the documents pertaining to the device's approval process) seems like it would be a pretty painless addition...
Obviously, there are an arbitrary number of variables you could theoretically demand a label for; bu
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, there are an arbitrary number of variables you could theoretically demand a label for; but this is one that is already computed, already available, and apparently of some public interest, which would seem to make it a not-illogical choice if the people of a municipality so decide.
I, for one, am glad that the court system can be used to keep the majority from making arbitrary rules.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll paraphrase this particular story then, which might help.
"The city of San Francisco once again vowed to remain steadfast in their commitment to ignorance, but today acknowledged that, because so many people have refused to remain as stupid as they are, the list of like-minded idiots willing to agree with them has plummeted to the point where creating an effective scare tactic campaign is well beyond their admittedly meager level of competence.
Jenny McCarthy is said to be fraught with disappointment, and
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Informative)
Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing. You know that, right?
You also understand what 'radiation' and 'non-ionizing' mean in this context, right?
(ie. "radio waves" and "utterly incapable of damaging a DNA molecule")
Re: (Score:1)
I slightly disagree. Radio waves can cause thermal heating in human tissue (close enough to the emitter, if there's high enough power), and heat exposed cells can exhibit DNA damage (not sure what the threshold is). I don't think you can say radio waves are utterly incapable of damaging DNA, in broad general terms. Although I haven't seen enough specific data on cellphones in this regard, I don't expect the effects to be significant.
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Funny)
There's been some hard (but inconclusive) science to possibly confirm this, too. An experiment was performed where a control subject stayed in the house, and a test subject went outside without a hat, in the daytime. The test subject reported a warm feeling, somehow coming down from above. Each subject's body temperature was measured with a thermometer, but they were the same. I don't know what it all means, but I think there ought to be a label on "outside" until we understand this radiation phenomenon better.
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Funny)
Another test was done where the subject went out for a "brisk walk". This caused adverse physiological reactions including increased heart rate, increased breathing rate and sweating, especially on an uphill part of the trajectory. We recommend immediate banning of hills in places where people are likely to walk.
In other tests it was also found that holding a piece of plastic to your ear for a period of time caused a localized warming effect.
Thermal- not really a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I slightly disagree. Radio waves can cause thermal heating in human tissue (close enough to the emitter, if there's high enough power),
Exactly.
Cell phones don't have enough power to cause significant heating.
It turns out that the body is very well adapted for cooling. The circulatory system is a good heat exchanger; it takes a lot of input to overload. Going outside on a 90 degree (F) day, maybe. Lying in the sun and absorbing a kilowatt per square meter, maybe. A one-watt (average transmit power) cell phone, no.
There is one exception to the fact that the cooling system of the body regulates the temperature, actually, the one place the blood vessels don't reach: the lens of the eye. You can't have blood vessels running through the eyeball, since it has to be transparent! If the scaremongers had been saying that cell phones caused glassblower's cataract, they would have had a mechanism. But that isn't the charge. (And, in any case, the power of a cell phone is just way too low to cause this-- you just don't get much heating from the 0.7 to 1 watt average transmit power of a cell phone to cause any damage. Don't stare into a red-hot furnace, though.)
[...] Although I haven't seen enough specific data on cellphones in this regard, I don't expect the effects to be significant.
You got it. The effect is not significant.
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's his point.
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning.
(Sigh)... Why is it always the hippies who take the blame for any San Francisco craziness? The closest things to hippies in SF are the drug addicts on the streets. They're not in control of politics, they're not even in control of themselves. SF and many californians are more concerned about the environment than a lot of other places, but that's not who is pushing for it.
TFA quotes Ellen Marks as a proponent of the bill. Googling her name and cell phones gets you to an op ed piece, and her bio reads
Ellen Marks is a member of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California; a past president of Women of Temple Sinai and of the Sisterhood of Temple Israel in Stockton, California; co-founder with her son Zack of the California Brain Tumor Association; and lead author of the Cell Phone and Brain Cancer Legislative Briefing Book, which has been translated into eight languages, including Hebrew. She is also director of Government and Public Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust.
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2885 [reformjudaismmag.org]
Not exactly a stereotypical dirty hippie or treehugger.
The article also mentions "powerwatch" as being behind the campaign, which is a group based in the UK to oppose cell phones.
These aren't California hippies, these are conspiracy-theorist idiots. Get it right. This isn't environmentalism, this is stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, whatever damage is done by radio waves from cellphones is going to be massively outweighed by the barrage of "radiation" coming from that unshielded fusion reactor in the sky we call the sun (not to mention background cosmic radiation).
For the record, "cosmic radiation" is a known factor for introducing errors into computer memory. "A cellphone is nearby" isnt.
Re: (Score:2)
IEEE Spectrum did a story on this, and mentioned the studies where people went around homes near power lines and measured the radiation. It turned out that the highest radiation in ordinary homes came from food blenders and electric razors (which are held against the head).
Incidentally, DNA is constantly damaged during normal cell duplication, and constantly repaired by DNA repair enzymes. I think the numbers were in the thousands of errors every time the cell divides. Every infant has about 60 mutations, m
Re: (Score:2)
Let me sum up the WHO's report on the dangers of radar [who.int]
* You may be experiening adverse effects from RADAR if you start having skin burns
* If you feel your organs starting to cook, you should mitigate the damage by leaving the vicinity of the radar device.
Damage is caused by thermal effects, thats it, and you should generally be aware of when that is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel your organs starting to cook, you should mitigate the damage by leaving the vicinity of the radar device.
It doesn't say that.... Now I'm disappointed, I was hoping the WHO had a macabre sense of humor....
Re: (Score:2)
WHO lists the damage threshold around 4W / kg. For the average male, thats going to be around 320 W. Most cellphones operate in the range of ~0.1mW.
This is a non issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phones have a peak emission power of up to 3W and usually transmit a few 100s of mW.
Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml [hypertextbook.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You quoted misleading figures that have been out of date for over five years. Analog phones had a max power output of 3 watts, but hand-held transmitters that had their antenna next to the head were always limited to one watt max. Bag phones, which were car phones in a sack, transmitted up to three watts, but the antenna was in the bag. When Motorola came out with their dual mode phone (it slid into a car-mounted bracket for power, audio, and antenna connections), it switched itself to one watt max when in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:2)
That's just not true. Microwaves do not cook "from the inside out." That's almost literally an old wives tale. At 2GHz, almost all radiation would be absorbed in the outer layer of skin and re-radiated as heat. Even for EM that can better penetrate solid/fleshy objects, the energy that penetrates will be attenuated because some portion will be absorbed at the exterior, and if the energy at the surface wasn't enough to trigger a pain response, then you probably (definitely) have nothing to worry about.
That
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:4, Insightful)
No one made that claim.
They only claimed it does not cause cancer. Which it does not. A cell phone is far too weak to do any real heating, nor would that heating go deep enough to get anywhere near your brain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not making any claim whatsoever regarding the harmfulness of cellphone radiation. I just point out that saying "non-ionizing" is not sufficient refutation of adverse health effects. Non-ionizing radiation can be harmful. The thermal effect is well known and can clearly damage tissue if the radiation is strong enough. Override the safety features of your microwave oven and you'll quickly find out that non-ionizing radiation can indeed damage DNA molecules. Other effects have not been conclusively proven
Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer.
These two sentences, when written together, make no sense. If many studies have found no harmful effect, than that is evidence that there is no harm. What other evidence do you expect them to provide?
Look, this really isn't hard:
1. There is no theoretical reason why cellphone radiation should be harmful.
2. There is no empirical evidence that they are harmful.
3. There is plenty of empirical evidence that they are not harmful.
4. There is no epidemiological evidence that they are harmful (cellphone owners don't get more brain cancer).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't claim something as harmless, nor can you provide evidence to back up that position. All you can do is show a repeated lack of evidence against any potential harm. The point I was trying to make is that no one has ever been able to provide any meaningful evidence of any increased cancer risk associated with cell phone usage. Since only one side can show evidence to their claim, there is no argument at all until such evidence is presented. Without evidence, the only conclusion that can be made i
Re: (Score:2)
I used to write for an environmental magazine.
After a while I realized the most important thing about environmental safety debates: Whoever gets the burden of proof loses.
So most environmental debates are about sticking the other guy with the burden of proof.
I was always looking for a clean argument with overwhelming evidence that would finally refute the other side. Unfortunately, the evidence was never quite that good. If the evidence was clearly irrefutable, there wouldn't be a controversy. The people on
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. The response to "The adverse health effects (like early beginnings of brain tumors) start showing up after two years." was "Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing.", suggesting that there are no adverse health effects if the radiation is non-ionizing. That claim is false, as shown by documented cases of adverse health effects caused by non-ionizing radiation.
Uh, no. Tumors == Cancer. Below red EM doesn't cause cancer from what we know. You're the one who implied cancer, and he responded to that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Suggesting they are non-ionizing does not mean they are safe. It just means they are non-ionizing and therefore do not cause cancer.
You are reading words that are not there.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim was that cell phones have radiation that can damage DNA and cause cancer. That's not true, microwaves don't cause DNA damage, though I suppose cooking you might cause damage to your DNA it's not the radiation that's doing it, it's a side effect of the heat produced. Seeing as how I've never seen a cell phone melt a chocolate bar let alone a person I doubt it's going to cause DNA damage, nor would that be my first concern in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but as pipe smokers know, the repeated application of abnormal heat DOES cause dna damage, as well as mouth cancer.
So absolutely correct, cell phones don't cause ionizing radiation; at least not hitting a researcher upside the head with one.
Cell phones produce microwaves, which cause abnormal heating of the inner ear nerve on the talking side of the head (or in the eyes), which then causes DNA damage, which then causes cancer.
Better sue researchers
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, but as pipe smokers know, the repeated application of abnormal heat DOES cause dna damage, as well as mouth cancer.
Since I'm a stickler on evidence, I don't think the damage from pipe smoking is due to the heat. There are lots of chemicals in pipe smoke that can damage cells, by damaging proteins, DNA, or whatever.
I don't think anyone has ever demonstrated that people who drink hot tea suffer DNA damage or mouth cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
Because I'm lazy...
The sun produces more heat on your skin than the microwave radiation from your phone. You would need ~200+ phones to make a crappy microwave oven, more like 500+ to make something that COULD warm something. But you'd have to focus them and sync their power output...and really what would be the point.
Oh and that inner ear nerve thing you said was made up or something...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health [wikipedia.org]
"One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is dielec
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't thi!k an optic lens or an inner ear wave guide would focus and concentrate the microwaves?
No effects. (Score:2)
There are no known adverse effects of cell phones. There is no epidemiological data on adverse effects. There has been no increase in cancer rate with cell phones. The largest study done actually showed a slight correlation of a REDUCED rate of cancer with cell phone usage.
There is no known mechanism for adverse effects.
Re:No effects. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not entirely true. Cell phones do have adverse health effects. They are known to be substantial contributors to distracted driving accidents that cause thousands of deaths and injuries every year, increasing the risks of accident by a level equal to that created by drunk driving.
If we limit the scope of the claim to first degree adverse health effects, then cell phones have much less of an impact on people, limited to the blunt force trauma caused by phones thrown by angry spouses and the like. But you still can't accurately state that there are no known adverse effects of cell phones.
Had you fully qualified your statement with "directly caused by emitted radiation", then you would have been 100% correct.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree entirely with this. The huge numbers of people using cellphones, and continuing to do so over the years, mean that any effects caused by their radiation emissions must be either very small or very slow. We have had a large enough population using them that significant effects would be clearly visible.
That does not mean that there are no effects. But it does mean that they are small compared to the very visible effects of distraction and misuse. If you are not prepared to ban cellphones because of th
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that the number of automobile accidents in the USA has declined ~12% over the last two decades, and the number of deaths due to automobile accidents has declined by 17% over the same period.
It should also be noted that traffic death rates have declined even more dramatically by vehicle-miles travelled (~40%), by number of registered drivers (33%), by popul
Re: (Score:2)
Had you fully qualified your statement with "directly caused by emitted radiation", then you would have been 100% correct.
You are forgetting that some cell phones have an infrared emitter which can be used as a television remote, that could certainly get you injured or killed in some households.
Re: (Score:3)
The largest study done actually showed a slight correlation of a REDUCED rate of cancer with cell phone usage.
There is no known mechanism for adverse effects.
Is that because the people who can afford cellphones don't usually live in houses with moldy asbestos ceilings?
Re: (Score:2)
Times have changed... now it is only older people who have landline phones. Ever notice the huge number of cell phone stores in poor areas? That Walmart, Target, and drug stores dedicate entire endcaps in high-traffic areas to prepaid cell phone cards? Low-income people have some really good tips on how to get cheap cell phone service. Follow their lead and you can save hundreds or thousands each year.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a story about the philosopher in the driving accident.
A philosopher is passenger in a car. The car gets into an accident at an intersection. The drivers sue each other.
At the trial, the philosopher testifies that they had the green light. The other driver's lawyer asks the philosopher: "Are you absolutely certain you had the green light?" The philosopher says, "Well, nobody can be absolutely certain of anything."
Then the other driver's lawyer asks his own client: "Are you absolutely certain you had
Re: (Score:2)
If neither of those things has been shown, then you can always say "But you didn't do THIS TEST!!! CONSPIRACY!!!" and people will. If they do a two year test, it will be three years. Or ten.
Re: (Score:1)
In Other News (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Sales of Reynold's Wrap spike in the Bay Area.
If only they'd use Stretch-N-Seal instead... Or Cling Wrap, or something that would increase the average IQ of the area.
I have an idea... (Score:1)
One gigantic warning label covering every square centimetre of San Francisco, listing all of the potential hazards you are exposed to by being anywhere near the place.
I've got the perfect label (Score:2)
One gigantic warning label covering every square centimetre of San Francisco, listing all of the potential hazards you are exposed to by being anywhere near the place.
San Francisco: The City that Waits to Die" [blogspot.com.es]
Re: (Score:1)
Warning: This device contains matter, which is known by the state of California to cause warpage of space and time. This device also contains extraordinary amounts of stored energy in its physical matrix. Handle with care.
Surgeon General (Score:2)
Warnings don't seem to be very effective for cigarettes. I'm sure they would be much less effective when it comes to cell phones, especially when expressed in terms that 99% of the population doesn't understand (it's just some number). Actually, it might even have opposite effect - buyers might purchase cell phones that have a greater radiation level, with the assumption that more radiation means greater range.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it might even have opposite effect - buyers might purchase cell phones that have a greater radiation level, with the assumption that more radiation means greater range.
This would be largely correct, and in fact would be a good choice, as the radiation is harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe truth labels instead? (Score:1)
so consistent (Score:2, Interesting)
Casual, recreational use of a variety of brain-altering drugs: fine.
Anonymous bathhouses where one can - hetero or homo - have sex with a variety of strangers: lifestyle choice.
Cellphones: "We should make sure we warn people about the dangers!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re:so consistent (Score:5, Informative)
Casual, recreational use of a variety of brain-altering drugs: fine.
Anonymous bathhouses where one can - hetero or homo - have sex with a variety of strangers: lifestyle choice.
Cellphones: "We should make sure we warn people about the dangers!"
Nope. I'd like to reassure you that the first two things also have plenty of lunatics trying to ban them.
Re: (Score:2)
In the first two cases though, the usual lunatic trying to ban them is doing so because it goes against their morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. It's not (usually) based on scientific fact of any dangers that could be lessened, minimized, or eliminated prevented with basic precautions and regulations. While they are entitled to have their own beliefs, they aren't necessarily those of everyone else.
The lunatic trying to ban cell phones is doing so based on unproven scientific "facts", not because of their belie
Well then... (Score:2, Insightful)
If "the city is not convinced phones are safe" then they should immediately pull all phones that were issued by the city to civil workers, police, the mayor's office, etc., right?
Wouldn't work anyways (Score:2)
All San Francisco can do is mandate that cell phones sold in San Francisco have that label. This would most likely simply result in no cell phones being sold in SF; you'd have to go outside the city when you wanted to buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's such a great idea to mandate all kinds of pointless activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you run Chris's Cell Phone Store. This law goes into effect. Now, you have to go to the FCC website and find every phone you sell, pay to have labels printed up (or hand scrawl the labels on every phone) and affix them to every phone. You also have to learn about the ratings to answer customer questions. Don't you love it when people waste your time and money for you? It's always "no big deal" when you make other people do your work for you. My answer would be, what's the big deal about you going
Destroys sales without helping (Score:5, Insightful)
Case 1: Company A labels their phone, company B doesn't. Customers looking at a phone from A get scared, look at phone from B and buy it because it doesn't come with the scary warning.
Case 2: Customer looks at various phones in a shop in San Francisco. They all have the scary warning, so the customer doesn't buy. Next time he visits Los Angeles, he goes to a phone shop, looks at all the wonderful phones without a scary warning, and buys one that he likes.
In the end, if mobile phones emit radiation that is dangerous for you, the perfect solution is to use the phone less.
Re: (Score:3)
Case 1: Company A labels their phone, company B doesn't. Customers looking at a phone from A get scared, look at phone from B and buy it because it doesn't come with the scary warning.
Me? I want one with high radiation. The higher the better. High radiation means better coverage!
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, they sell cases that block cell phone radiation now. Not phone skins, but cases to store the phone in. When they're not in use. To block the radiation that they're not giving off.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, then you'd never receive a call
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you have to label the fields honestly then.
"This field contains an unexploded toy firecracker."
"This field contains no mines, but many shards of jagged, rusty, pointed steel."
"This field contains anthrax spores."
Now, if I had some reason to want to scare you away from this field, I might label it "this field contains less than fifty mines per hectare." It's perfectly true, but disingenuous.
Not Just San Francisco (Score:1)
California really doesn't care about science behind labeling, hence the signs in stores that say, "This product contains products known to the state of California to cause cancer." The sign doesn't say known to science, accepted by science, proven by some scientific method - it says that the legislature voted one day and decided it was bad. This causes truly bad chemicals to be mixed in with a larger body of not-so-bad chemicals and that just causes people to ignore all the warnings.
Pretty soon they'll ha
Re: (Score:2)
Di-hydrogen monoxide!
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, those signs are to say that the *building* contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Also, Radon isn't exactly what I'd call a "not-so-bad" chemical.
Sounds like a good idea. (Score:1)
Why are you people against labeling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it's not harmful, what reason could you have to be against letting me choose whether or not my GMO food was farmed by Jews? All I'm asking, is that GMO food made on farms where Jewish workers are employed be labeled, and that cell phones manufactured in a facility which employs coloreds be labeled. I just think we should have an informed free marketplace. That's good for everybody, and even chinks have shown a preference for an informed free marketplace.
It's not like I'm trying to outlaw those peoples' products or infringe on your right to do business with Jews, colored, towel-heads, or Catholics. If you're ok with doing business with those people, I don't have any problem with that. It's a free country and I hope your daughter brings one of them home with her. All I'm asking for, is a harmless label and the right to choose. Why's everyone acting like I'm some kind of unreasonable asshole?!? I don't get it!
Re: (Score:2)
*slow clap*
Very nice job walking the razor's edge between incisive sarcasm and trolling. I feel that you succeeded in making an insightful point (just no mod points left this week). That was positively channeling Jonathan Swift in short form right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell of a way to validate Godwin's Law... Let's argue against it with science and reduce to their level.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on if the labeling is forced, optional, or prohibited. Optional is the most free. Forced is sometimes appropriate for some dangerous products. I can't think of a good reason to prohibit informative labeling.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Jews want to choose food that was farmed by other Jews. Specifically, they want to choose food that was farmed and processed by Jews who were supervised by their own rabbi.* And most state laws let them do that.
___
*It would take more time than I have to properly make fun of these rabbis.
Re: (Score:2)
If you or the people who modded you up can't see the difference between singling out one particular group of people for no scientific or rational reason and labelling products that there is at least some convincing evidence should be used with care then I'm not sure it's even worth arguing.
Embarrassing. (Score:2)
We should be ashamed these ever existed in the first place.
Californians need only one label (Score:2)
Attach this to every Californian's forehead:
"This user is too stupid to act responsibly to protect self, do not sell product to this user".
Story isn't the Science (Score:2)
Regardless of the science behind effects of the radiation, its pretty sad to have another instance of corporations throwing money at what was (presumably) the will of the people until it goes away.
Arguably labeling laws are an effective way to provide the individual with power in capitalist system. Individually people don't have power to sway manufacturers, but when provided with information consumers can decide whether they feel its important and if enough people feel similarly it asserts influence on the
Re: (Score:1)
Level 2b carcinogen (Score:1)
SARy law to begin with (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You already have every piece of information you need to make an informed decision today.
The facts are a matter of public record. Look up the FCC ID on the label on your cell phone here: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ [fcc.gov]
Now, read the documentation that was filed in order to certify that device, and find out which sets of FCC rules it falls under to see the limits it must meet. You can also see the test reports they filed proving their device complied with all applicable rules.
If that information is ina
Re: (Score:2)
...What business is it of *ANY* municipal government to even try to regulate something like this?
Simple: The people complaining are voters. The primary business of all municipal governments is to get people to vote for them.