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."

36 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. the sky is falling! by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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,
    1. Re:the sky is falling! by citab · · Score: 5, Funny

      Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"

      That should totally be made into a T-Shirt

    2. Re:the sky is falling! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can prove that Cell phones cause cancer because they are always emitting their GPS signals to the government, and they can remotely activate the voice input on your phone to listen to what you are saying. Luckily, I've got a free open source non-patentable method of keeping them out. You take some regular household tinfoil, and you wrap it around your head, so that it nicely rests on the ears. Make sure you get everything North of your eyebrows covered, and all the way around to the strange marking on that back of your neck from that one night you were abducted. (For those not abducted, just cover the entirety of your neck, to be safe).

      Next, you need to take your passport and stick it in the Microwave, because the government put an RFID in there, to keep track of what terrorist states you are visiting. While you're in the kitchen, get a water filter, but not Brita, that is clearly alluding to England which is a close friend to the United States Government. Make sure you filter your water twice, and possibly even Distill it to make sure any and all drugs in the water are not present.

      You should start a garden in your basement and grow some wheat (not outside! They'll see your crops on Google and poison them!). You can then turn that wheat into your own flour and use your own non-contaminated water to make dough, which you can then turn into a wide variety of foods.

      Last but not least, every time you use your computer, make sure to open a text document and type in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" so that the FBI/CIA/Military Industrial Complex knows that you know and won't bother watching you. Follow these simple steps and you too can free yourself from the insanity that oppresses the sheeple into doing the corporations bidding. Maybe one day we'll rise against the new world order together, and take back what is rightfully ours **(I don't know what that is yet, but when I figure it out I'll let you know.)

    3. Re:the sky is falling! by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      That should totally be made into a T-Shirt

      ... and sent to every politician.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:the sky is falling! by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Including Ron Paul

    5. Re:the sky is falling! by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.)

    6. Re:the sky is falling! by jank1887 · · Score: 3, Funny

      But... he has people skills!

    7. Re:the sky is falling! by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:the sky is falling! by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Funny

      since you thing anything with "radiation" is bad, I have dire warning for you, your ear is less than 30 mm from a 150 watt infrared radiation source! better rip that 3.5 kilogram source off your ear, stuff it into a bio-hazard bag, and incinerate it now! you won't miss the thing, you're not using it anyway.

  2. insanity by haruharaharu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:insanity by broken_chaos · · Score: 4, Informative

      no real studies confirm the notion

      Not stopping there, there is at least one major study that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.

      They should keep these sort of 'warning' labels to items that have solid, reproducible evidence of significant increases in risks of cancer -- like cigarettes. If they start slapping them on everything that they (in their position as 'a legislator') think might cause cancer, these sort of warnings will lose all meaning.

    2. Re:insanity by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
  3. No proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.

  4. Where's the Science? by gbutler69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Where's the Science? by gregarican · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays...

    2. Re:Where's the Science? by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Just like California by gregarican · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  6. Do not forget potato chips by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Do not forget potato chips by coaxial · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Do not forget potato chips by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  7. There should be another warning by thomasdz · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Use of this device while travelling on public transit may cause people to hate you"

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  8. how about... by kellin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?"
  9. You always need to be first! by dakohli · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  10. The end by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We all have to go sometime, son. And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.

  11. Diabolical! by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Idiotic by tsotha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  13. Re:Just like California by nsayer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  14. Re:Will this be covered by the public option? by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    I heard that secret government labs were working on a special new kind of headset that uses on ordinary _wire_ to connect to a telephone.

    I can't imagine how they have solved all the problems of carrying complex audio signals through something as simple as a wire, but I still predict that this new, previously unheard of, "wirelessless" technology may catch on in a big way over the next twenty years.

  15. NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? by Blappo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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?
    1. Re:NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  16. Re:Just like California by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  17. Re:Just like California by mjwalshe · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:objective measure by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  19. Doing these things without any proof... by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:A better warning would be... by kbielefe · · Score: 3, Funny

    They can't help using their phones while driving. Brain cancer impairs their judgment.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  21. Telephone sanitizers by LeadSongDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mock them now, but for how long?

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.