Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
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.)
The carcinogen is acrylamide, and thanks to California's Prop 65, 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.
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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.
In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
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.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.