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."
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.
.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Reboot macht Frei.
If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.
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!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I recall smoking cheap cigars and reading the warning label on the packaging. It might cause cancer in the state of California. Glad I smoked 'em in Florida. Made me rest a hell of a lot easier, ya know?
Fried foodstuffs contain known carcinogens. We should add this informative label to potato chips as well.
"Use of this device while travelling on public transit may cause people to hate you"
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key. Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air". This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Who gives a flying leap? We're inundated with all sorts of things as we wander around this planet, and I for one think its a bunch of bollocks.
And really --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16059841
If 420k danes dont have cancer from cell phone use, then nobody will.
GWB to President of Brazil - "You have blacks, too?"
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).
And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads. By next year, you'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm.
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.
We all have to go sometime, son. And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.
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.
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."
Ironically, those LN2 tanks DO present a danger that is worth warning about. But the warning isn't that "nitrogen may be present," obviously. The issue is that a leaky LN2 tank in an enclosed space may wind up making nitrogen the ONLY gas present, which is extremely hazardous. You can pass out without feeling anything abnormal in advance, and then quickly suffocate. Nitrogen asphyxiation has been advocated as an execution method for this very reason, in fact. Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago. The second tried to rescue the first without first understanding what went wrong, and then succumbed himself (if I am remembering the story properly).
"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.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
Those older minutes are just as good as the newer ones. Don't give me that look!
Note that the burning sensation that we associate with suffocation is actually triggered by excessive CO2 levels.
Hence the acute danger of asphyxiation when a compressed gas (other than CO2) is displacing the atmosphere – you don’t feel anything.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Even better, “Asphyxiation hazard – Dangerous low-oxygen conditions may occur if LN2 tanks leak. Oxygen monitors must be used at all times.”
Simple, descriptive, and complete: tells exactly what the danger is, when it may occur, and what precautions are necessary to ensure the workers’ safety.
Of course, nobody hired me to write the warning labels...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
And your point is? if it leaked you could get a higher concentratin of O2 and beyond a certain point if you get a spark you get a very nasty fire this is how the Apollo 1 crew died.
Let's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone. If it's small enough, I dare say we should have no warnings anyways. Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks.
"So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me? It's just another pointless government thing, like with cell phones."
Hypothesis: Cellphones give you the brain cancers.
Test of hypothesis: There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours, that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations. This, thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we're bathed in worldwide. We'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe, but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer, as a result of the characteristics here, such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head.
Results: There isn't any. Or if there is an effect, it's very very small, such that 'there isn't any' is still valid for all practical purposes. Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best, what few studies their are haven't showed anything worth more study, and we're a long way from any causal proof. Orders of magnitude smaller than gee, I don't know, exposure to actual chemical carcinogens, sunlight and bad lifestyle?
(EMF could be carinogenic, I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer, due to the sheer energies involved, and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades.)
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]
That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one. There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese. There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer. And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.
There's no consensus, because it is false.
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.
An ammendment to the bill requires a second tattoo, explaining the dangers of cancer associated with tattooing.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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.
They can't help using their phones while driving. Brain cancer impairs their judgment.
This space intentionally left blank.
You can sue for anything. Winning the suit is something else entirely.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
You mock them now, but for how long?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.