Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones

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."

Comments

the sky is falling!

[grub]

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.

.

Re:the sky is falling!

[joocemann]

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.

insanity

[haruharaharu]

Scientists don't agree, no real studies confirm the notion, and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm'. Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.

Where's the Science?

[gbutler69]

Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!

Re:Where's the Science?

[MozeeToby]

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.

Do not forget potato chips

[cheesybagel]

Fried foodstuffs contain known carcinogens. We should add this informative label to potato chips as well.

Re:Do not forget potato chips

[StikyPad]

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.

You always need to be first!

[dakohli]

It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items. It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it? With this stuff, we seem to be living in a culture of fear. So it's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react, so that they can claim to be the first, and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better.

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.

Diabolical!

[KingSkippus]

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

[tsotha]

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?

[Blappo]

"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:NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations?

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Doing these things without any proof...

[meerling]

If they get this one without proof, how long until they start forcing others without proof.

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.