San Francisco Requires Cell Phone Radiation Warnings

Lord Ender writes "Poor phone reception may soon be a selling point in San Francisco. A city ordinance was just approved which requires those selling phones to indicate the 'specific absorption rate' (SAR) caused by the radio transmitters in the phones. Cell phone industry groups opposed the law. The FCC already requires phones sold in the US to have SAR levels below 1.6 W/kg, though adverse health effects from such levels of radio exposure have never been conclusively demonstrated."

Comments

Medical Radiation the New Demon

[eldavojohn]

Recently it was reported widely that “airport scanners, power lines, cell phones and microwaves” ain't got nothin' on medical scanning radiation. Now people are asking for tracking systems and calling them a threat.

I'm not really worried about cell phones as much as when I roll into my new dentist's, get 18+ x-rays of my entire mouth for their record. Find out I need two inlays on the lower left. Come back in two weeks and get two more xrays so they know where to drill. Come back in two weeks to get the inlays put in only to have them re x-ray the inlays after they were in to make sure they were in properly since they couldn't floss between them. What. the. hell? Can't you use regular light and your eyeballs to set those in there? I mean, I'm glad you did a good job, I just don't know what to do about this malignant jaw tumor now ...

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Monkeedude1212]

It's true - don't you think it's a little weird that your Doctor will tell you to go pose over there by the wall, while they hide behind a lead curtain?

I mean, I get it. They do X-rays all the time so its better that they don't get exposed to it everytime a patient does. But I begin to wonder if there is a way that doesn't involve X-rays at all, that way we all can rest a little easier.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[JWSmythe]

    I really hated that story. The news story that is. Your doctor story is sadly accurate.

    In the news story, they mix non-ionizing radiation (like RF) and ionizing radiation (like X-ray), and don't clearly differentiate them. Both can be bad. Ionizing radiation can be worse. They miss the fact that even if every source of man made radiation were to be neutralized, both still exist at background levels. Well, unless you are exposed to daylight, then you're getting a bit of both. :)

 

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Black Parrot]

I wonder how the medical imaging radiation an average person receives compares to the daily, hourly, sometime nigh-continuous exposure to the lower levels of radiation from a cell phone.

BTW, your dental x-rays sound excessive.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[somaTh]

Out of curiosity, was it the old film x-ray or the newer digital ones? It's my understanding that the newer ones use significantly less power and are "safer" for multiple uses. Even if it was, I agree with you. That kind of usage sounds excessive.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, was it the old film x-ray or the newer digital ones? It's my understanding that the newer ones use significantly less power and are "safer" for multiple uses. Even if it was, I agree with you. That kind of usage sounds excessive.

Sorta offtopic so I'm replying anonymously but the new digital ones. They still left the room to hit the button but the machine would xray and then it would come up on the computer screen sitting across from me pretty darn quickly. This one had just opened. Plus they had LCD screens facing each chair and were a little cheaper on inalys (which I needed).

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon

[MozeeToby]

I wonder how the medical imaging radiation an average person receives compares to the daily, hourly, sometime nigh-continuous exposure to the lower levels of radiation from a cell phone.

It doesn't. Trying to compare the two would be like trying to compare getting hit with a ping pong ball once a minute all day every day to getting shot with a 9mm pistol once a year. Look up the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation if this isn't making sense to you.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[theNAM666]

What are you complaining about? I went the dentist and then the urologist a few years ago, and then attempted to drive over the Williamsburg bridge. Six ATF guys pulled me over because their radiation detector went off... I don't want to remember the rest of it.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[gumbi west]

From the article:

"A chest or abdominal CT scan involves 10 to 20 millisieverts, versus 0.01 to 0.1 for an ordinary chest X-ray, less than 1 for a mammogram, and as little as 0.005 for a dental X-ray. Natural radiation from the sun and soil accounts for about 2 millisieverts a year."

So your 30 x-rays add up to 0.15 mSv--if they were using the latest and greatest instrument and knew how to use it. That is a little more than an ordinary chest x-ray.

But I think that assumes that the person taking the x-ray knows how to position the lead apron properly, and not all mine hygienists have know or done this.

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon

[boneclinkz]

How many generations of iPhone before it can produce X-Rays?

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[bill_mcgonigle]

First, go to a dentist who can do a panoramic x-ray, if only for speed/comfort.

Second, a dental x-ray is 1-3 mrem. Some studies have shown humans tolerate about 3 rem per year well, so you'll be fine.

Third, I'll take a bit of radiation over exploratory surgery any day. When the Star Trek biobed arrives, that'll be good too.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they could just cut you open and have a look around instead.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[geekoid]

A man can handle 100 X-Rays a year, and should have to.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they did that for me too. When I asked though, they said that it's a weak precaution. The place was a bit newer and they claimed the walls weren't lead lined which, in retrospect, sounds sounds a bit unsafe, even if they are using lower levels.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[commodore64_love]

You could just say "no". When my dentist asks why I just say, "Costs too much"

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Low Ranked Craig]

Radiation used in medicine is the largest source of man-made radiation to which people in the United States are exposed. Most of our exposure is from diagnostic x-rays. Physicians use x-rays in more than half of all medical diagnoses to determine the extent of disease or physical injury. Radiation is also used in cancer treatments, where precisely targeted radiation destroys diseased cells without killing nearby healthy cells. Radiopharmaceuticals, another medical treatment, are used to locate tumors in a patient's body and to treat cancer. One-third of all successful cancer treatments involve radiation.

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

• Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
• Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
• Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
• Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
• Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[fiannaFailMan]

It'd be cool if they could do something about the resolution of ultrasound. Any ultrasound experts out there...?

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

"A chest or abdominal CT scan involves 10 to 20 millisieverts, versus 0.01 to 0.1 for an ordinary chest X-ray, less than 1 for a mammogram, and as little as 0.005 for a dental X-ray. Natural radiation from the sun and soil accounts for about 2 millisieverts a year."

Considering that a CT scan is an array of rotated x-rays, it would make sense that a CT scan is about 10-100 times the radiation of a plain film. It's also about 100 times as useful. Chest x-rays are pretty much only good for showing lung issues and clavicle fractures.

But then, I've stood next to a constantly firing fluoroscope, so color me unimpressed.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[sleeping143]

Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[fiannaFailMan]

Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution.

I seem to remember a company that I was gonna work for (but didn't - long story) using ultrasound for looking for cracks in metal.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[toastar]

Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution.

While I'm not a Medical Expert, I do seismic work for a living.

Why not just filter out the Shear data, That way only the P-waves are there, This would adjust for the Gas issues. I imagine a wider receiver then could adjust for the sudden velocity variations.

I'd prefer a weird uncomfortable contraption to being zapped with ionizing radiation.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

Dental x-rays are by far the worst because they use the actual x-rays to expose the film. X-rays tend to pass through things, so not many are stopped by the film so you need a higher dose to get an image.

Most medical x-rays use a thick scintillation screen within the machine that absorbs the x-rays and emits light. The scintillation screen is thicker than an x-ray film, so absorbs more x-rays, the film is then exposed by the generated light and not directly by the x-rays, so a lower dose is required.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Dan Ost]

Beyond burns, what risks are associated with non-ionizing radiation?

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Bakkster]

Ultrasound works well any time the entire item to be checked conducts sound uniformly. Gas diffuses the sound wave too much (particularly at such high frequencies), and I assume the fact that bone is essentially a calcium foam also causes odd echos.

My experience with ultrasound comes from using it to determine the depth of an oil resevior on pressure sensors at an old job. We're talking thousandths of an inch of oil under a metal foil another couple thousandths thick. Basically, we submerged the sensor in water to allow the ultrasound waves to be nice and smooth, giving us good echos. When using ultrasound to determine paint thickness or find cracks, they need a gel or other liquid to transmit the sound well enough to the metal.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

They're scary. Seems as though some people have an RF phobia. Probably stems from them never taking a physics class in their life, I blame the public school system.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You sound like my HMO.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

So your 30 x-rays add up to 0.15 mSv--if they were using the latest and greatest instrument and knew how to use it. That is a little more than an ordinary chest x-ray.

The energy of a chest x-ray dumped into an area the size of your jaw is going to have more damaging effect than if it were sent through your chest. The sun doesn't roast ants by itself, but when condensed with a lens...

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[need4mospd]

I may not always get x-rays, but when I do, I get 100 of them.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[xaxa]

I'm not a physicist.

Visible light hurts if it's too bright, it can damage your eyes (e.g. looking at the sun, or a laser).
Ultraviolet can cause skin cancer, and can damage your eyes.
Microwaves can heat up the water in your cells and damage them.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[ultranova]

Beyond burns, what risks are associated with non-ionizing radiation?

You might see something you don't like. Light is scary for those who prefer the darkness of ignorance.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

Beyond burns, what risks are associated with non-ionizing radiation?

Ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation, and those others are burns.

Care to revise your statement?

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dentist is a scammer, plain and simple.

X-Rays are *piss poor* at ability to figure out where to drill in a tooth and to figure out any sort of cavities. That's not even their job. But dentists do perform them because they were taught that AND they can charge you for the service. You also *feel* like more was done for you. In reality, with my untrained eye and having a cavity that was easy to see with plain eyes, I was unable to see the depth of the cavity on the X-Ray. The dentist couldn't see much either. From then on, I do not have xrays anymore and I do not have cavities either.

So why are X-Rays still a good thing for dentists? If you happen to have a toothache or jaw pain and there is nothing visible, the X-Ray can very easily reveal an accumulation of fluid (ie. an infection) under your tooth requiring a root canal procedure. That's about it. Dental xrays are great for detecting fluid accumulation under your teeth.

As for requiring 18+ xrays of your mouth for record, that is plain and simple scam. Sometimes panoramic X-Rays are warranted if you have impacted tooth removal, etc. But that is rare situation. 2 weeks and new x-rays? That is plain and simple scam. Hell, some dentists will find cavities where there are no cavities too!!

I'm one of the blessed individuals to have a very good dentist, not a scammer.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[MoonBuggy]

There is some evidence to show that non-ionising radiation can cause eye problems (I heard it described once as 'cooking them like an egg white', but I don't know how accurate that analogy is). I don't think that's possible with the power levels coming out of a phone, though.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

I love how slashdot is so anti-intellectual these days that mentioning facts is considered to be trolling.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[treeves]

UV is definitely not ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation includes alpha, beta and gamma/x-ray, and cosmic rays (mostly protons, the rest alpha, beta, x-ray, heavier element nuclei).
Vacuum ultraviolet (extremely short wavelength UV) can be ionizing, but one can't be exposed to it, since, like its name suggests, it is absorbed by even a small amount of a gas, so it can travel only through a vacuum. UV A, UV B and UV C do cause photochemical reactions, but they are not ionizing radiation.

I guess that's why the troll mod.
Just to make sure everyone is clear on it.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[JWSmythe]

Well, non-ionizing radiation can be detrimental, but only at high levels and/or at close proximity. There was an excellent news story quite a while back, about a school that had been built under high tension power lines. The power company donated the land to the school district, and the district spent a few million dollars to build a nice school there. In the first few years, a significant number of students who spent a year or more at that school were diagnosed with leukemia. The district had to abandon the new school.

    When I was in high school, I started a science fair project on the effects of the high tension lines. Under the right conditions (high load in hot weather, where lots of air conditioners were running), A fluorescent light bulb would glow if held up towards the lines from ground level.

    That's a long way from the amount of radiation put off by cell phones. I know some people have freaked out about wifi AP's and cards, but there are no legitimate cases of medical problems from them that I'm aware of. I do love the folks who say they're allergic to RF. There was a case where the a whole group of people brought a class action suit against a provider because of the detrimental effects of RF, caused by antennas on his tower. He played that perfectly though. He had shut down the tower shortly after the complaints started. When it got to court, and the people were all bitching that they still had adverse effects, the provider stated (with supporting paperwork) that the tower had been completely shut down for months. :)

    I personally had an experience with household stuff causing medical problems. I was born with a cataract, which caused my vision in one eye to be 20/40. I bought a new CRT monitor back in 1991. In the first 18 years of my life, the condition didn't change. Within 2 years of using that monitor, the cataract caused my vision to go from 20/40 to 20/200. There was some news about the possibility back then, and CRT monitor manufacturers worked to decrease the tube radiation, so 18 years later, we barely remember that it ever happened. In looking around, that may have not only have been non-ionizing, but ionizing (x-ray). The monitor has long since been tossed (who would want a 14" CRT now?), and I don't even remember the model.

    That's a long way from what ionizing radiation can do though. If I had been exposed to ionizing radiation for the same duration as the non-ionizing radiation, I would have had severe radiation burns, my hair would have fallen out, etc, etc. Well, I don't have to explain it, all you have to do is look at the 2007 arrest photo of David Hahn. That's not acne. :)

    I worry more about getting hit by a stupid driver in traffic, than I do about the RF floating around. I did consider building a faraday cage into the master bedroom of my house, but that would be for the pure entertainment value (and to block my cell phone from working), than for any real reasons.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[JWSmythe]

    There is a video floating around where someone cooks an egg between two cell phones. Of course, it's faked, but lots of people use it as proof.

    If something could cook your eyeball like an egg, they'd suffer many more serious injuries that would cause their demise. That's kind of like saying the victim of a firey car crash died of heart failure, when the real reason was that they were burnt to a crisp. Sure, their heart stopped at some point, but I'd say the flesh melting from their entire body may have been a contributing factor.

    I like it when the news reports someone died jumping off a building (or whatever). No, the jump didn't kill them. It's the impact with the ground that did. Wheeeeeeeeeee [SPLAT].

 

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Volante3192]

That's kind of like saying the victim of a firey car crash died of heart failure, when the real reason was that they were burnt to a crisp. Sure, their heart stopped at some point, but I'd say the flesh melting from their entire body may have been a contributing factor.

Assuming, of course, that heart failure wasn't the factor that caused them to get into a firey car crash.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of facts, being an patronising cock often gets you a troll mod.

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon

[ZorbaTHut]

Want to irradiate your scalp? There's an app for that!

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

Lower energy UV, while not ionizing, for all intents and purposes causes harm by cooking you. The UV band in general is absolutely considered to be ionizing.

Furthermore, talk of UV in general is highly irrelevant, it's on the complete opposite side of the visible light spectrum from the microwave radiation used by cellphones for fucks sake. We are talking the difference between a centimeter band, and a nanometer band, 7 whole fucking orders of magnitude different.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an expert, but I know that the limiting resolution for any imaging technique won't be much better than 1 wavelength.

Since medical ultrasound is on the order of 1 MHz, and the speed of sound in water is 1 km/s, wavelength should be on the order of 1mm. Therefore, significantly sub-mm resolution might be possible (I'm going from memory here, and could conceivably be 10x off current tech), but would need top-notch equipment. Even cheap-ass X-ray equipment can easily beat that, so I don't see ultrasounds for dental work any time soon.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

Oh come on, that "power lines cause cancer" shit has been known to be bullshit for years now.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[treeves]

"The UV band in general is absolutely considered to be ionizing."

No, it is not "in general".

See http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2111.html.

and http://ehs.uky.edu/biosafety/uv_radiation.html

and http://yarchive.net/env/ultraviolet_dna_damage.html

and http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html#ultraviolet

and http://www.icnirp.de/PubOptical.htm

Again, vacuum ultraviolet is something people will never come into contact with since you'd literally have to be in a vacuum to do so.
So in terms of the UV that anyone cares about from a health standpoint, it is not ionizing.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[gumbi west]

Well, the Sievert does not actually measure energy, that is the Gray. Sieverts are Grays, weighted by how the radiation might cause cancer and (in this case) what part of the body they hit. The going assumption is that the rate or total energy matters approximately linearly for low doses, but obviously when you get up there (well above the CT scans) then things change.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[gumbi west]

Well, the distinction may have been a little silly all along RF can split water, so who knows what is being ionized by non-ionizing radiation in complex systems like a body.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally had an experience with household stuff causing medical problems. I was born with a cataract, which caused my vision in one eye to be 20/40. I bought a new CRT monitor back in 1991. In the first 18 years of my life, the condition didn't change. Within 2 years of using that monitor, the cataract caused my vision to go from 20/40 to 20/200.

And now your post is responsible for a large reddened, irritated area on my forehead, in a shape that correlates strongly to the palm of my hand. Where should I send the lawsuit papers?

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[gumbi west]

Yes read the section titled, "What are the health effects of microwave radiation?", second para It starts, "Some biological effects cannot be explained by a temperature rise in the body or in any one part."

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[JWSmythe]

    Oh, you can just email it to me. postmaster@localhost

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[JWSmythe]

Very entertaining. I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

NYU - Langone Medical Center
http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=94085

Children who lived less than 200 meters away from a high voltage power line at birth were 70% more likely to develop leukemia than children who lived more 600 meters away at birth. Children who lived between 200 and 599 meters away from a high voltage power line at birth were 23% more likely to develop leukemia than children who lived more than 600 meters away.

Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany, SUNY
(Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician trained at Harvard Medical School and Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York at Albany)
http://weeksmd.com/?p=3226

There is definitive scientific evidence that exposure to magnetic fields from power lines greater than 4 milligauss (a level significantly less that what is expected to occur near this proposed power line) is associated with an elevated risk of childhood leukemia. Some scientific research indicates an elevated risk at levels of 2 milligauss. A home not near a power line will usually have a level of less than 1 milligauss.

University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco
(note: Transco would have an interest to find no correlation between power lines and any ill effects)
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/large_study_links_power_lines_to_leukemia.htm

Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.

Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,158193,00.html

One of the most telling results was that the cancer risk grew in proportion to the strength of the electromagnetic field. Children with constant exposure to the weakest fields, calculated at less than 1 milligauss (about the same that a coffee maker generates when it is brewing), had the lowest incidence of cancer. Those exposed to fields of 2 milligauss showed a threefold increase in their risk, while children exposed to 3 milligauss showed a fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia. Such a clear progression makes it difficult to argue that factors other than exposure to the electromagnetic field were responsible for the extra cases of leukemia.

The Straight Dope
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2699/electrifying

I'll say this, though. Evidence for a link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia turns up just often enough that it can't be entirely dismissed.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[JWSmythe]

    Well, if the "burnt to a crisp" did apply, figuring out the state of the heart would be a neat trick. :)

    But, dying of a heart attack isn't instantaneous. Unconsciousness can come pretty quickly though. In those type of cases, if there was no firey crash, they may have survived.

    That's semantics though. Kinda like shooting a dying animal. What killed them? The gunshot. Would they have died anyways? Yes.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Dude- get a new dentist. I don't know if I'm the exception or the rule - but I get about one complete set of x-rays every two years no matter what work I'm getting done.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

The UV band is 10 nm to 400 nm. Under radiation under about 120 nm is ionizing. Ergo, the part of the UV band is ionizing.

From a health standpoint, it just cooks you. Still nothing new.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Sir_Lewk]

I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

Because I'm not arguing that children that live closer to power lines don't have higher likelyhoods of developing leukemia. I'm arguing that EMF is not the cause, and physicists are infinitely more qualified to speak on that matter.

As stated here, "there is no biological mechanism to explain the higher risk". Correlation does not imply causation, and in this case there is a very very notible absense of scientifically sound proposed mechanisms for causation.

If you want to play this just by references, then here you go. Courtesy of the paper I previously linked to you, I'd suggest actually reading it instead of dismissing it for being writting by a physicist (what could a physicist possibly know about EMF after all?). I think this trumps some article in Times..., have fun:

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2. Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3. Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is also a 1995 paperback edition.
4. PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired June 13, 1995.
5. Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6. Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7. American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23, 1995.
8. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete book]
9. Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10. Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11. Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12. Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review A43:1039-1048, 1991.
13. Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14. Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in cas

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Floody]

Ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation, and those others are burns.

No it's not. At least not in the common usage. Extremely high frequency UV is indeed ionizing, but what is typically considered UV light is not. In order to be ionizing, the field or particle must be capable of stripping electrons from atoms. Standard "UV light" does not have enough energy for this.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The new issue of Skeptic, on the stands now (!!!) has a detailed article about the fraud of cellphone and power lines and other EMF "cancer causers".

The energies are no where near enough to break the chemical bonds, so there is no rational basis for what might be happening. And, of course, there is no evidence of it, either, so there's really no more need to explain how it might operate any more than you need to explain how telepathy might operate.

"Before you explain a thing, first prove it exists as a phenomenon."

Umm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you say preemption? A federal judge will throw this law out instantaneously.

Re:Umm?

[poetmatt]

As I understand small amounts of law but I'm not a super-law genius, how would preemption apply to this? Isn't this just adding regulations as opposed to overriding federal ones and/or being overrided by federal ones?

Re:Umm?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

Read the 'Field Preemption' section.

Re:Umm?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this conflict in any way with Federal law? The FCC regulation listed was a requirement for products sold in the US. The San Francisco law required warning labels. It does not in any way govern what can and can't be sold or what is allowed to be used in San Francisco.

If (and I highly doubt it) the FCC regulation specifically states that devices need not carry a warning label, you might have a semi-applicable point. However even in that case, FCC regulations are not Federal laws...there's a difference. Judges put much more value in things that have passed congressional votes than they do in decisions by appointed officials.

Re:Umm?

[Anonymous Coward]

A conflict is not required for preemption to apply.

Furthermore, regulations can preempt state law just like federal laws can. And judges don't disrespect federal regulations as much as you seem to think.

poor reception

[Trisha-Beth]

Poor reception means that the phone has to transmit at higher power to reach the cell base station.

Re:poor reception

[JWSmythe]

    I went to Europe once (years ago), with my Nextel phone. I left it on quite a bit, so I could retrieve phone numbers, and call them from my local cell phone. The Nextel phone usually lasted for days if it was just turned on but I wasn't making calls. I had to charge it every night while I was there, because it was constantly seeking towers that didn't exist. After I got home, everything was back to normal. It could find towers, so it worked at lower power.

Re:poor reception

[stephanruby]

On that note, isn't this ordinance stepping on the toes of the FCC anyway?

Re:poor reception

[John Hasler]

> On that note, isn't this ordinance stepping on the toes of the FCC anyway?

No. It does not impinge upon the design or operation of the phones.

Re:poor reception

[Volante3192]

Not really. States can add to Federal regulations, they just can't take away from them. (I.e., CA's clean air laws are much stricter than the EPA's.)

Re:poor reception

[bill_mcgonigle]

I had to charge it every night while I was there, because it was constantly seeking towers that didn't exist.

Yep. I'm in awe of the power budget engineers who designed my LG nV2. It can regularly run 4-5 days between charges, in an area with only mediocre coverage.

But if I spend the data in a data center (faraday cage), the battery is down to 20% after an 8-hour job. Nice mini-USB car charger to the rescue. And the darn thing charges up in just a couple hours with its tiny battery. Such a good phone (with crappy ear speaker, unfortunately, but a 2.5mm hardline headset is great).

Re:poor reception

[MozeeToby]

Similar problem when I go to visit the folks up in rural Wisconsin, the solution I've found is to put the phone into airplane mode (both of my most recent phones have had it so I assume it's becoming standard). That allows you to use the phone as a PDA (pull contact information, view/edit saved data, play games, etc) without it running down your battery in a matter of hours.

Re:poor reception

[conureman]

I try to remember to switch off my phone when I'm in dead areas as it seems to drain the battery in a few hours, trying to reach the network. I avoid adding to my personal dosage of radiation as far as practicable, Layers of fabric for sun protection and backing away from "harmless" emitters like CRTs and microwave ovens. Hoping to find my death somewhere other than an Oncology center. YMMV.

Re:poor reception

[JWSmythe]

    Datacenters are always funny for cell phone coverage. One in particular was mostly underground. If you were standing on one side, you were about 20' down. If you walked across the datacenter, it was at street level, but there was a thick steel reinforced concrete wall. If someone managed to make my phone ring, which did happen occasionally, I'd have to ignore it, go upstairs (to ground level) and out through the security checkpoint before I could call them back. :) But I've only had a few phones that you could even attempt to use in a datacenter. The Motorola phones I've had were the best for noise cancelling, so the caller could hear me clearly, but most of what I heard was the noise, until I'd go outside.

    One place wasn't bad. I always had a good signal, but the noise inside was too loud to hear anything. I'd have to say "hold on", while I ran for the door.

    Most of them were as you described. So much metal, I may as well have been in a faraday cage. No signal inside, and full signal as soon as I stepped outside. In a few places that I visited a lot, I left a charger there, so I could leave the phone charging while I was working. I always thought it looked funny having my phone on a managed PDU, but hey, it worked. :)

Re:poor reception

[sznupi]

Aye, some manufacturers do care; this is one of the most striking (almost to the point of being funny) example of that :)
Surely in some optimal scenario, of course; but from what I can tell after contact with few Nokia phones meant as long lasting ones (even if only to the half time of the above one), it can be definatelly felt in daily usage. And it seems it can be done even with some smartphones...

Re:poor reception

[Bigjeff5]

Next time, put your phone in Airplane Mode. It cuts off all wireless transmissions from your phone. It will last a week like that, if you are only occasionally checking it.

Re:poor reception

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if your Nextel was capable of this, but when you travel anywhere outside the area where you live or spend most of your time, try updating the phone. This will provide it with the network info in the area that you are in when you do the update, you should update again when you return home. My broadband wireless card does this automatically whenever I use it in a new or different location.

If it was long enough ago it could have just been switching between digital and analog, especially if the battery was getting older.

Re:poor reception

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorta like Arizona . . . . . mmmmm?

Re:poor reception

[JWSmythe]

    The only problem there is forgetting to set it back. :) I do the same thing with shutting it off. Folks get upset when you forget to turn your phone back on for a day. :)

Re:poor reception

[JWSmythe]

    nah, it was when Nextel was exclusively iden, which was only in the US. They didn't (and still don't, as far as I know) have iden service in Europe, so there was simply nothing for it to talk to.

    At the time, they did have a "world" phone, which was a combination iden/GSM, but it was a one time, one week trip, so it wasn't worth buying another phone.

    I switched off of Nextel when Sprint bought them, and they started screwing with my billing. How do you explain $300/mo overages when the phone's battery was dead in an area with no reception, and when I called to ask about it, they didn't show any usage, but still insisted I owed them for the overage. I told them to go have intimate relations with themselves, which resulted in them hanging up on me. I returned the favor each time they called me trying to collect it. Oddly enough, that's why I dropped Sprint years before. You can't extort money from me, just because I'm a customer.

important psa

[girlintraining]

WARNING: The Sun is radioactive! Avoid using it to make phone calls. -- San Francisco.

Re: important psa

[Black Parrot]

WARNING: The Sun is radioactive! Avoid using it to make phone calls.

Or at least avoid holding it against your ear for prolonged periods.

Re:important psa

[Caledfwlch]

I don't think they have Sun in San Francisco (Fog City)

Re:important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they should just encourage more people to use sunscreen and hats in order to avoid skin cancer and probably save millions in hospital bills.

Re:important psa

[Itninja]

Warning: bullets exit from gun barrel very, very fast. Do not point at face.

Re:important psa

[interkin3tic]

To play ridiculous devil's advocate, you know when you are in sunlight and how bright it is. You don't know what your cell phone is spitting out, though since they don't appear to do anything to you, that information is trivial.

As far as warning about the sun, well that would at least be consistent for California. Warnings on everything about how they could cause cancer and birth defects. LAX has to warn you not to jump out on the tarmac and drink the jet fuel, because it can cause cancer. That the city doesn't -currently- warn you about UV causing cancer is a loophole some lawyer is probably thinking about how to exploit right now.

Re:important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

This raises the interesting question of if the FCC would allow solar powered cell phones.....

Re:important psa

[Volante3192]

To play ridiculous devil's advocate, you know when you are in sunlight and how bright it is.

Therefore, you know the sun emits light and heat, and that's all you can conclude without further analysis.

I honestly believe if you asked a random sample of the population, they'd be agog at the revelation that the Sun emits radiation. (These people would also likely sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide.)

Re:important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly believe if you asked a random sample of the population they'd be agog at the fact that washing your hands is sanitary procedure.

Re: important psa

[geekoid]

Holding the sun to your ear will not cause cancer. I guarantee it.

Re: important psa

[impaledsunset]

Oh, stop it. The grandparent is correct. Beaches should have signs that say "WARNING! Solar radiation!".

Re:important psa

[GofG]

Dihydrogen monoxide? I've heard of that. Isn't it the main ingredient in most harmful pesticide sprays?

My understanding is that it has gotten into most of our lakes and rivers, and even in our drinking water.

Re:important psa

[commodore64_love]

"Sun is dangerous. Do not wear this bikini unless trying to attract a mate with your firm stomach and big breasts. Otherwise cover up." - California General Surgeon

Re: important psa

[jdgeorge]

Right. I wish there were some organization the produced useful advice about how to manage exposure to solar radiation, which comes in various forms, and has various effects, so I could know what I should do to stay healthy when I go to the beach.

Re: important psa

[Bigjeff5]

It would be better if it said something like "Caution! Radiation Exposure Risk!"

Re: important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

But will it sound like the ocean?

Re:important psa

[ultranova]

WARNING: The Sun is radioactive!

So... Does that mean that Greenpeace will be turning against nuclear power next?

Re:important psa

[interkin3tic]

I honestly believe if you asked a random sample of the population, they'd be agog at the revelation that the Sun emits radiation. (These people would also likely sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide.)

That would be intentionally misleading and would mean little. Lots of people would likely be astonished if you put it like "Scientists have discovered the sun is emitting harmful levels of RADIATION!!!" Were you to clarify that 1. That's not a -recent- finding and 2. UV is radiation, few would remain astonished.

Same thing with the dihydrogen monoxide. The point of that skit was, if anything, that you can deceive people into signing almost any petition, so you have to question the validity of petitions.

The point was not to demonstrate that people are tragically misinformed: not knowing that dihydrogen monoxide = H2O = water is trivial information for most people. They know what water is. Similarly, not knowing that UV = radiation is trivial to most people, they know that they can get sunburned and cancer from it.

Re:important psa

[ultranova]

ARGH! I mean solar power!

Re:important psa

[Volante3192]

Were you to clarify that 1. That's not a -recent- finding and 2. UV is radiation, few would remain astonished.

I'm pretty sure 'UV = radiation' would astonish people.

Radiation is associated with things like Chernobyl. Hiroshima. Yucca Mountain. Blinky, the three eyed fish on The Simpsons. Bad things, in essence.

That radiation is simply a massive umbrella with a wide spectrum is a fact lost on people.

Re:important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing, it's just a NIMBY argument. Greenpeace are in favour of spectacularly deadly unshielded fusion reactors so long as they're not on this planet.

Re:important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING: Bananas are radioactive! Avoid using them to make phone calls. -- San Francisco.

WARNING: The ground is radioactive! Avoid walking on it. -- Colorado

WARNING: YOU are radioactive. Avoid getting anywhere near your own bones.

The conflation of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is one thing; the realization that we are constantly exposed to low levels of both (perhaps high levels of the latter!) is another.

Re: important psa

[Anonymous Coward]

But will it sound like the ocean?

It'll sound like that bit of the ocean where the Deepwater Horizon sank.

Re:important psa

[ahtnos]

I've even heard that most plants and animals now have large quantities of this stuff in their systems. Somebody should just ban ALL chemicals!

Hey Gavin

[Low Ranked Craig]

Please educate yourself.

Re:Hey Gavin

[Anonymous Coward]

You think he doesn't know? Gavin is a politician. Reality is just a pesky annoyance to his life's great devotion to feeding his own ego. This is the guy that blamed the NRA for a triple murder which then turned out to have been committed by an illegal alien with a long rap sheet who was still in SF thanks to Newsom's sanctuary city policy. He continued to defend the policy after the shooting, saying he hopes to "outrage" people. The man is utter scum who should be spit on by everyone who passes him.

Re:Hey Gavin

[Low Ranked Craig]

You think he doesn't know?

Honestly? Yes. I think he isn't capable of understanding even the simple definitions and explanations in the attached. I've talked to council members on various city councils over the years - there are some astoundingly stupid people in local government that lack knowledge of basic economics, let alone basic science.

OMG!

[another joe]

What about second hand radiation? Maybe they should only call in their own homes!

Re:OMG!

[Bigjeff5]

Quick! We need a government mandated Cell Phone Industry funded add campaign warning about the horrors of first and second hand cell phone radiation exposure!

Re:OMG!

[anamin]

Thanks give them something else to complain about.

Other things that Emit Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

-Fire
-Stove
-Television
-The sky

Re:Other things that Emit Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

They're probably also confusing cell phone radiation with teh gay.

Re:Other things that Emit Radiation

[Bigjeff5]

-The sky

The sky doesn't emit radiation, it actually blocks a lot of it. Solar radiation would be a hundred times worse without the sky. However, it does transmit a small amount highly energetic radiation, so it isn't blameless. It just doesn't emit anything.

Fire is far and away the deadliest emitter of harmful radiation.

What is San Fransisco doing about the radiation danger of matches and lighters?

Re:Other things that Emit Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

The sky doesn't emit radiation

Polar lights.

Re:Other things that Emit Radiation

[n6kuy]

Even those eco-friendly CFLs emit radiation!

I think you might need a new dentist

[mbessey]

Seriously - I didn't get anywhere near that many x-rays when I had my root canal/crown operation a couple of years ago.

Re:I think you might need a new dentist

[Sir_Lewk]

Really. My dentist can x-ray my entire mouth with about 2 or 3 shots. I don't remember the figure exactly because he only does it every other year, or right before drilling a cavity (hasn't happened in a few years either :). I'm not normally one to be afraid of a little radiation, but 20-some xrays for essentially a single trip to the dentist is probably cause for alarm. What happens when you go back in 6 months?

A Selling Point?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor cell reception increases the risk of radiation emitted from mobile phones. How in the world this is a "selling point" is beyond me.

Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[rubenerd]

I acknowledge we don't know the long term effects of any mobile phone usage because we haven't been using them long enough, but at the same time I feel uneasy. Phone companies would stand to lose so much money and have their industries labeled alongside big tobacco, so I can't help but think they're pouring as much research into studies that "prove" phone radiation is harmless. Even if they couldn't convince people, at least they'd make the water murkier.

I dunno, my opinions on the ethics of big business have hit another all time low, for some reason.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[MozeeToby]

There are populations that have been using cell phones for almost 30 years, and before them there were groups that used hand held radios of similar power levels for another few decades. Granted, the levels of use are probably going up, but in many cases the power output is also going down so you're talking about minimum 30 and up to 60 years of use, it shouldn't be too hard to get a group of long term radio and cell phone users together and have them take a health survey. In fact, you probably wouldn't even have to, all you'd really have to do is look at the rate of brain cancers compaired to the rate of cell phone adoption and if there's a strong correlation you can investigate further (here's a hint, there isn't one).

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[Black Parrot]

Phone companies would stand to lose so much money and have their industries labeled alongside big tobacco, so I can't help but think they're pouring as much research into studies that "prove" phone radiation is harmless. Even if they couldn't convince people, at least they'd make the water murkier.

Surely you're not suggesting that the pursuit of money would cause someone to put other people at risk.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[LingNoi]

I acknowledge we don't know the long term effects of any mobile phone usage because we haven't been using them long enough,

riiight... because no one studied the effects of radiation on humans before phones came along....

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[rubenerd]

riiight... because no one studied the effects of radiation on humans before phones came along....

Yes, and I said mobile phone usage specifically. There are many different types of radiation, and many different ways of administering it.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[rubenerd]

I'm not a doctor, that's why I was asking. As a heavy mobile phone user, here's hoping your hint is correct!

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Were those used for equivalent prolonged periods of time? Was the transmitter held next to the head, or at a distance giving equivalent exposure to a cell phone transmitter next to the head? If neither is true they're not equivalent situations.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[bill_mcgonigle]

shouldn't be too hard to get a group of long term radio and cell phone users together

Be careful about stopping by the local HAM club and doing a health survey. Long-term radio use seems to cause geekery, pudginess, beer cravings, and a tendency to use linux.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[geekoid]

There is too much empirical data to even come up with a correlation, much less causation.
Too many studies from out side the industry continue to find nothing.

There really isn't any evidence to support this. While tobacco lied, you will note the studies and empirical evidence did come out.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[Cro Magnon]

Surely you're not suggesting that the pursuit of money would cause someone to put other people at risk.

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[serbanp]

You're missing several key factors that matter more than the "30 years since we've been using them and look - no problem!" meme.

The antenna time has increased dramatically since the mobile bricks were introduced in the 80's.

The emitting power has been decreasing. ON THE AVERAGE. Peak power is as bad as ever and these days you cannot say for sure if your GSM phone stays close to its 2W peak due to bad reception or dropped it to the advertised lower level. One aggravating factor is that the carrier frequency keeps increasing, these days reaching the 2GHz range. Who knows, higher frequency may affect the brain tissue differently from the old ones -I guess the SAR number could be relevant here.

Finally, the old phones used an external antenna. In the past few years, that has disappeared, the antenna being replaced by either an internal version (which is closer to the head) or by using the frame itself as an antenna (which is closer still). Therefore, the distance between the radiant source and the brain is nowadays much smaller than it used to be, which is very, very bad.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot

[h4rr4r]

They called them coffin nails in the 18th century, people knew they were not healthy.

Remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonionizing radiation is nonionizing.

Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why people consider "more information to consumers" a bad thing, and get all threatened by it. The economy is there to make CONSUMERS lives better.

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but requiring the SAR to be printed in fine print on the product label along with the dozens of other numbers is one thing. But generally laws of these sorts require large highly visible warnings that often overstate the dangers, at least until the industry pushes back. They often try to get rid of the notice, or get it to underemphasize any dangers. The result is usually something more moderate.

Re:Threatened?

[gninnor]

If everything is labeled "warning" including things that have shaky evidence to support it, eventually warnings become less useful and ignored.

That being said, I really do not see what "information" is being provided.

Re:Threatened?

[dwillden]

And semi-coincidently California now has so many warnings on so much stuff that the warnings do get ignored.

CA should just save time and require everyone and everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) within the magical borders of CA to be labeled as being possibly cancerous.

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you need larger legal departments than actual development departments to wade throught the clusterfuck that are pointless regulations and idiotic laws.

Of course that is probably one of the intended side-effects: politicians with legal backgrounds catering to themselves and further barriers for small businesses to enter any market.

Re:Threatened?

[bill_mcgonigle]

And semi-coincidently California now has so many warnings on so much stuff that the warnings do get ignored.

Hey, now, I've stopped using extension cords so I don't get cancer. I may need a knee replacement, though, constantly running around plugging and unplugging stuff. If I don't get killed in a house fire, that is, from exceeding the max insertion ratings on my power outlets.

Re:Threatened?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I *wish* we had magical borders. We could make them teleport illegal border crossers to Chiapas.

Re:Threatened?

[sznupi]

As soon as you talk specifically about "consumers", I'm not sure "making their lives better" is of any importance...

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's interesting is that there have been several studies (one in particular on the propensity of pickup trucks to overturn when cornering too fast) that have proven that even dire warning labels do not change consumer behavior in any statistically meaningful way. As a group, consumers don't give a greasy shit until after they're hurt, regardless of labels.

Re:Threatened?

[conureman]

Typical AC troll, but I'll bite. How many lawyers does it take to measure the SAR?

Dumb Fuck.

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want more information? Great, then here goes.

'facts' in the same vein as the cell phone radiation 'fact':
Green M&Ms will make you horny
Drying banana peels and smoking them will get you high
If you eat and then swim right away you will get a cramp and die
You will go blind if you maturbate
Green potato chips are poisionous
Swallowing pop-rocks will cause your stomach to explode

That enough 'facts' for you?

Re:Threatened?

[CyberDragon777]

Remember, a house fire can produce chemicals which can cause cancer! There is no escape!

Re:Threatened?

[Rakishi]

Pretty much. Every building seems to have a "something in here may cause cancer" sign. Yeah, if I chug the gasoline in all those cars in the parking structure I'm sure it will give me cancer but why the fuck would I do that? I seriously need to get a "the sun is known to cause cancer" sign on the inside of my front door.

Since almost all the signs are worthless, any which do matter get ignored by me as well since I have no way to differentiate between them.

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING! Sperm - possibly cancerous. Clinical trials have shown that sperm can cause uterine growths that may cause severe damage, both physical and psychological, over extended periods of time.

Re:Threatened?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

you must be a libertarian.

The market exists to conduct transactions, making it fair for all has been a result of Government intervention.

It was only 100 years ago when 16 hours of labor a day was worth enough scrip for barely enough to live off of from the company store. Now 16 hours of labor is worth 8 hours plus 8 hours times one and a half.

Re:Threatened?

[BlueStrat]

you must be a libertarian.

The market exists to conduct transactions, making it fair for all has been a result of Government intervention.

The problem is, the government has gone from simply setting ground rules to ensure a free and fair market, to micromanagement of nearly every aspect of a business and to the point that it has distorted the free and fair market that was the original goal.

It was only 100 years ago when 16 hours of labor a day was worth enough scrip for barely enough to live off of from the company store. Now 16 hours of labor is worth 8 hours plus 8 hours times one and a half.

Don't thank the government, thank the labor unions. The government was on the side of the corporations back then, and even encouraged companies using union-busting thugs to beat down union members protesting poor/dangerous conditions and miserly pay. It wasn't until the unions were able to organize into large enough voting blocs to threaten politicians' elections that the government suddenly found a need to seriously improve conditions for the average US worker.

As has already been said, these new regulations are just another distraction from the piss-poor job elected officials have been doing, and an attempt to have something to point to on election day.

Strat

Re:Threatened?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The problem is, the government has gone from simply setting ground rules to ensure a free and fair market, to micromanagement of nearly every aspect of a business and to the point that it has distorted the free and fair market that was the original goal.

Could it possibly occur to you the reason for this isn't that the Government isn't just grabbing as much power as possible, but rather the unscrupulous have gotten more and more crafty at what they do?

Don't thank the government, thank the labor unions. The government was on the side of the corporations back then, and even encouraged companies using union-busting thugs to beat down union members protesting poor/dangerous conditions and miserly pay. It wasn't until the unions were able to organize into large enough voting blocs to threaten politicians' elections that the government suddenly found a need to seriously improve conditions for the average US worker.

As has already been said, these new regulations are just another distraction from the piss-poor job elected officials have been doing, and an attempt to have something to point to on election day

No, thank the Government too. The Government isn't a monoculture, the "one party system" that a lot of libertarians complain about is only on very large, very complex issues. For all other things, there are huge differences between parties. In the 30's, we went from Herbert Hoover to FDR.

A lot changes in between election cycles.

These regulations DO suck. They're obscenely stupid. They're the result of representative Government. But my post wasn't about that. It was about the nature of the markets. The markets do not exist for any other reason to perform transactions. This regulation is stupid, but, that doesnt' mean the idea of regulation

Re:Threatened?

[thegarbz]

Slashdot Summary:

Warning: Reading this article may cause brain damage as a result of bashing your head against the keyboard upon realisation that some legislators still don't know the dictionary definition of "ionising radiation". Recommended daily exposure to this slashdot article should not exceed 5 min

Re:Threatened?

[cvtan]

I noticed the "cancerous materials" signs in every restaurant in California the last time I was there. What am I supposed to do? Not eat there? It is true that if warnings are everywhere, they stop being useful. The government feels it has an obligation to protect citizens and therefore requires itself to do these dumb things. Make it stop.

Re:Threatened?

[BlueStrat]

The problem is, the government has gone from simply setting ground rules to ensure a free and fair market, to micromanagement of nearly every aspect of a business and to the point that it has distorted the free and fair market that was the original goal.

Could it possibly occur to you the reason for this isn't that the Government isn't just grabbing as much power as possible, but rather the unscrupulous have gotten more and more crafty at what they do?

Could it possibly occur to you that the "unscrupulous" you speak of are both in government and in corporations/business, even to the point that many are in both, at least as far as their financial and political interests go?

The only way to make sure that every single person/entity/business is acting lawfully and ethically is to have absolute control and knowledge of all aspects of their lives, actions, and transactions. There are already laws against bad behaviors, the problem is that politicians & bureaucrats use selective (or just non-) enforcement in cases where it benefits either themselves, their ideologies, and/or their financial interests.

Don't thank the government, thank the labor unions. The government was on the side of the corporations back then, and even encouraged companies using union-busting thugs to beat down union members protesting poor/dangerous conditions and miserly pay. It wasn't until the unions were able to organize into large enough voting blocs to threaten politicians' elections that the government suddenly found a need to seriously improve conditions for the average US worker.

As has already been said, these new regulations are just another distraction from the piss-poor job elected officials have been doing, and an attempt to have something to point to on election day

No, thank the Government too. The Government isn't a monoculture, the "one party system" that a lot of libertarians complain about is only on very large, very complex issues. For all other things, there are huge differences between parties. In the 30's, we went from Herbert Hoover to FDR.

Wait, what? What does that have to do with the fact that it was unions that forced the government to establish in law fair labor practices? Regardless of what party may be in power, politicians are human beings with all the same faults that every other human has, including those in private sector companies and businesses.

The big difference is that those in government can send men with guns to force someone to do as they wish. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the people with the guns & prisons under more restrictions as to what powers they may exercise, not give them more. Of course, someone may disagree if they've already had their jack-boot fitting done.

Strat

Re:Threatened?

[halcyon1234]

WARNING!: This item is harmless.

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know there is a law mandating SAR measurements on phones? How do you know about all those other hundreds of regulations and laws you have to comply with or else you get sued into oblivion? How do you understand the legal ramifications of all those laws? How do you know the legalese correct form to comply with them?

Making sure your products meet all those hard to find, non-obvious regulations is a full-time job.

Try to set up a simple commercial website in Germany and you will know the pain of getting sued for trivialities. Like not providing phone contact information in the correct form and size; or using a disclaimer - provided as a template by an official government agency - because even they cannot write them legally correct.

I doubt you have any idea of the burden these idiotic regulations and laws put on small businesses.

Re:Threatened?

[conureman]

I used to run a television repair shop, which is fairly well regulated in the People's Republic of California: I think I know a thing or two about idiotic regulatory burdens like, say, the California Vehicle Code. (I know a LOT of codes that the police AND the courts seem unaware of.) Perhaps I'm incorrect about this, but I think the Burden is primarily "too much" for the IDIOTS, who whinge endlessly about the impossibility of their being followed. Honestly, are those legal experts so much smarter than YOU that you can't follow regulations without help?" Perhaps the Germans have advanced the state of the art on obfuscation and concealment of regulations, but here it's all about the crybabies. BTW is some one cranking out cell-phones in a Palo Alto garage? All the ones that I've seen seem to be coming from pretty substantial offshore facilities.

Re:Threatened?

[Deefburger]

I live in CA and all the warnings make it like living in the Gorge of Eternal Peril! We have some high ranking idiots in our city council who have insisted that the businesses down town not provide WiFi because it causes cancer. I think they have the diagnosis wrong and it's really causing idiocy, but only in those who are genetically susceptible to the disease. Maybe one or two people at best.

Re:Threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a local law so the ones who have to comply are retailers, not those who produce them.

German legalese is horrible. It's closer to a different language than anything. Many words have different definitions in legalese and regular German. But that's not the only point. It's the sheer amount of asinine regulations that no sane person would think of. If you want to know all of them without legal help, you might as well forget about running a business because there will be no more time left.

My example with the disclaimer is a recent one. It's a disclaimer (right of withdrawal instruction) that every online seller is required to show customers. Even the legal department of the Federal Ministry of Justice was not able to write a template that held up in court. Pray tell me how I should be more knowledgable in matters of law than the fuckin Ministry of Justice?

Anyway, my point was that these pointless laws and regulations needlessly add overhead for businesses. Especially in cases like these when there are already federal regulations and it's not even clear whether or not there is any grounds for said regulation. All they do is force you to waste money on lawyers who add no productive value.

Driving?

[gninnor]

They are at greater risk driving while on the phone of dieing. Perhaps that should be on the warning.

"DO NOT USE WHILE OPERATING HEAVY MACHINERY" or something like that.

Re:Driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already a law in many states...don't make it a law and then enforce 'warnings'...

Everything will have to have a warning label 'Do not break the law!'

Re:Driving?

[gninnor]

Agreed, and before that we had many states with "distracted drivers" laws that could (and should) have been enforced. I was being a bit silly, but my point is that of dangers associated with cell phones, this is not even close to the ones I would try to "educate" the public about.

Unintended Consequences

[rally2xs]

These morons will get the transmitter power reduced even further, and like the bozos that whine about cell towers in their neigborhoods, will be unable to communicate. Then whoever theye are trying to prevent from bleeding to death by dialing 911 will just go ahead and do so, since the call will not happen.

Re:Unintended Consequences

[DigiTechGuy]

You mean the Kaliphornians will soon die off of their own stupidity? Time to celebrate.

Re:Unintended Consequences

[PCM2]

Thank you! This idiocy has been happening in San Francisco (where I live) for some time now. Near me is a neighborhood called Noe Valley that's a favorite of young families. Picture double-wide baby carriages pushing up and down the lane, past all the coffee shops, brunch joints, boutique clothing shops, and used bookstores. A while back, Noe Valley successfully lobbied to prevent any expansion of cell tower capacity in the neighborhood, to protect their precious offspring from all that terrible radiation. Of course, every last one of these fretful mommies has a BlackBerry or an iPhone in here purse, but they aren't the problem. It's the evil, evil corporations that -- god dammit, I'm only getting one bar! I'm going to call AT&T and give them a piece of my mind...

It's just the ignorant, self-righteous and scared leading the ignorant, self-righteous and scared, nothing less.

Re:Unintended Consequences

[RMH101]

I thought the whole point of SAR measurement was it encouraged manufacturers to make handsets that directed RF energy away from the body by the use of shaped antennae? This is s good thing, unless you're planning on using your skull as a waveguide.*

* stupid car tricks: your remote alarm fob works from a longer distance if you hold it next to your head when you press it. Try it, it genuinely works. I get odd looks when I do it without thinking...!

iPhone

[StripedCow]

The iPhone has written in its manual that, in order to safely use the phone, you should keep it at 1 inch distance from your head. Now, I think that phone manufacturers should be required to change the form-factor of the device so that you can only use it in a safe way.

Re:iPhone

[Quiet_Desperation]

Put sharp 1 inch spikes on the phone. They will have the added benefit of preventing pigeons from landing on your phone.

Re:iPhone

[Backward Z]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/3/29/633739402465682160-THEDETHPHONE.jpg

What about Full body Airport "Security" Scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

radiation?

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Domodedovo,
Kilgore Trout

Californians piss me off

[JumpDrive]

Just like a bunch of Californian wussies to get all worried about a little bit of cell phone radiation, when we have FREAKING UFO's flying around everywhere.
Did anybody tell them that when the wind blows East to West that dust from the Trinity site settles in the fog?

Re:Californians piss me off

[kellyb9]

Just like a bunch of Californian wussies to get all worried about a little bit of cell phone radiation, when we have FREAKING UFO's flying around everywhere. Did anybody tell them that when the wind blows East to West that dust from the Trinity site settles in the fog?

Started reading that thinking it would be a political rant... I was way off.

Re:Californians piss me off

[Deefburger]

Oh crap! I hope my city council doesn't get wind of this! They've already designated us a nuclear-free zone, in spite of the mandate for smoke detectors....

This is an implant .....

[wsanders]

... not just a crown. They drill a screw down into your jaw or skull bone, then mount a tooth on it.

I would *definitely* not want to have problems with that, they could take as many X-rays as they want. At 0.005 millisieverts (see parent's link) that's still 1/20th the amount of a chest Xray.

Now off to brush my teeth compulsively for the next hour.

Re:This is an implant .....

[Eponymous Coward]

Have you had an implant? My dentist is telling me to get one (have a missing tooth) and the estimate is between $4000 and $5000. That seems a bit outrageous to me. Just wondering if you (or anybody else) has data to compare.

I told my dentist I'll get an implant in Mexico and he just laughed at me.

Re:This is an implant .....

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I was quoted 1500EU for a implant and crown (composite crown).

Re:This is an implant .....

[phly1x]

this is how i roll: get to an oral surgeon. have the implant procedure done through your health insurance. see you dentist about the cosmetic/restorative work. i've done this three times, my wife once.

Re:This is an implant .....

[wsanders]

Also (on topic) a few friends of mine have had implants and that's more or less what they paid. Sheesh, my dentist charges $1000 - $1500 for a crown.

Re:This is an implant .....

[CohibaVancouver]

I told my dentist I'll get an implant in Mexico and he just laughed at me.

If you have sufficient vacation time, I'm told India is a popular location for Dental-Tourism, due to the prevalence of English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_tourism

Re:This is an implant .....

[Eponymous Coward]

Your health insurance covers the implant procedure? What country do you live in? I'm in the US, have excellent health insurance and I'm almost certain they wouldn't cover the implant procedure. I think their justification is that it's cosmetic.

Re:This is an implant .....

[geekoid]

I'm in the US, and mine covers it. You should double check with your insurance.Not just the first person to pick up the phone) You might also want to redefine what good insurance is.

Re:This is an implant .....

[Eponymous Coward]

We have good insurance. My boss is Canadian and the running joke around here is that he is trying to recreate the Canadian system in our office. All of our deductibles and copays are reimbursed and the company funds an FSA for each employee and their family to cover stuff that slips through the cracks.

The big gap in our coverage is dental. Two cleanings per year and only $1000 of other work is covered. That doesn't even cover one crown.

Re:This is an implant .....

[Talizorah]

Hey, Eponymous. I'm in California, USA.

I was reduced to paying out-of-pocket for a root canal recently (I switched insurance providers and my new dental coverage won't kick in for another year). The procedure and crown cost me $3500. So, $4,000-$5,000 for a tooth implant does sound normal to me in comparison.

Dental work is one of those things that I do consider worth the cost, because it is such highly specialized work. Being able to chew, and being able to smile confidently, are also important enough to my quality of living for me to justify this kind of expense. Then again, I'm paying out-of-pocket for teeth whitening during my cleaning visits too, so I might place a higher value on dental work than most.

I'm sorry to hear about the missing tooth. I hope that you can find a way to get the implant at a more affordable price if the $4,000 is too unreasonable in your market, or under your circumstance. Have you checked with your insurance provider? I would think that something as essential as a tooth replacement would be covered. If it isn't, then it should be! >:(

Re:This is an implant .....

[Anonymous Coward]

That is awfully high. I just had a filling, a crown and an implant, and the total cost came to $2600.

Re:This is an implant .....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you're serious about getting a dental implant. I have two, and in retrospect, they are a waste of money. Unless it's one of your front teeth that you're showing to the world, I can't think of any reason to do it.

I got mine after being in an accident and the dentist fed me all this propaganda about how implants are necessary because my bottom teeth will grotesquely start growing upward since there are no top teeth to stop them.

After I had my two implants, I found out that one of my teeth got horribly injured in the accident and they just hadn't found out about it until six months later. So, they pulled it and recommended me to get a third implant. I remembered the pain and cost of the first two, and despite they're warnings that my back teeth will never know how to deal with a missing tooth, I wouldn't allow a third implant. This pissed the dentist off and I still have an empty spot in the the back of my mouth where a tooth is missing. So far, none of my teeth have turned weird because of its absence, and it's been over 8 years.

I can't recommend dental implants unless they're in the first four teeth. They just aren't worth the time and money.

Re:This is an implant .....

[Eponymous Coward]

I'm thinking about it now because I'm starting to have bone loss where the tooth should be.

Other than that, it's mostly a cosmetic issue for me. I don't think about the missing tooth very often, but I smile a lot and every picture I see of myself, I can easily spot the missing tooth.

Cell phone radiation is harmful!

[Anonymous Coward]

...adverse health effects from such levels of radio exposure have never been conclusively demonstrated."

Fox News, Glen Beck, Neocon columnists, Teabaggers, etc.. Something has to account for the mentally deranged popularity of these idiots.

Re:Cell phone radiation is harmful!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called putting up with liberal bullshit. It drives us fucking crazy.

The absence of "heath effects", however,...

[John Hasler]

...has been conclusively demonstrated. Cellphones are known (even to the state of California) not to cause cancer.

Re:The absence of "heath effects", however,...

[geekoid]

No. No test has ever shown any indication they have never caused cancer. Based on the sensitivity, and extremely low power emitted by the phones, it isn't likely ever to be shown to cause cancer.

We also don't know of any form of cancer increasing over the last 20 years that could be linked to cell phones.

It's tough to prove a negative.

Re:The absence of "heath effects", however,...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tough to prove a negative.

No it's not!!!

Re:The absence of "heath effects", however,...

[John Hasler]

> No test has ever shown any indication they have never caused cancer.

It takes only one counterexample to disprove a theory. In this case the theory is that cellphones cause cancer and it predicted that the referenced study would find a positive correlation between cellphone use and cancer. The study results constitute a counterexample.

> It's tough to prove a negative.

A negative: "The sky is not always blue". Proof: go outside at midnight and look up.

Re:The absence of "heath effects", however,...

[geekoid]

Wow, you really are stupid, aren't you? I can find many tests the were counter examples to the theory the tobacco caused cancer. All they way up until there where tests that showed otherwise. Better testing models, technique and methods can change things. Of course we should put label on everything assuming sooner or later there will be a positive test. It was obvious to everyone above moron level(which is why you may have missed it) that my opinion is that there is no issue, science can only work with th data is has...

You also need to consider the rigors of the study, and how many studies where done and so on.

"It takes only one counterexample to disprove a theory"
no, it doesn't.

Yes, you can use a stupidly simple example; which is why I said 'tough'.

There is a reason we need precise language in science. Sadly, explaining it to you would probably be like trying to explain basic avionics to a turd.

"The sky is not always blue"

The sky is never blue. It looks blue sometimes because of the way light is.. well, I'm sure you wouldn't understand so I won't bother.

San Francisco's law is reasonable

[wsanders]

You have to realize SF's Board of Supes is way into touchy feeley useless laws, it's easier than fixing their broken water mains, potholes, clogged storm drains, unreliable transit system, intractable homeless problem, and enormous budget deficit.

This law just requires sellers to post SAR levels where they can be easily evaluated. Verizon already posts SARs on the little price cards next to the phone. Whatever, SAR is a completely meaningless figure anyway.

It isn't nearly as nutty as the City of Sebastopol which refused to consider municipal WiFi, citing radiation concerns:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6082680

Re:San Francisco's law is reasonable

[commodore64_love]

It sounds like diversion to me. Argue over this silly cellphone law instead of water pipes or clogged roadways. What an incredible waste of resources (money, time).

Great

[geekoid]

more ignorant public setting science policies.
Fucking nitwits.

Re:Great

[DaveV1.0]

Better be careful.

Someone might call you elitists for believing that scientists and other experts might know better than the mouth-breathing, TV-watching, failed-at-critical-thinking random man on the street or basic B-list celebrity.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking nitwits.

How do they work?

This could lead to heavier phones:

[gblackwo]

So if they need to keep the SAR number low, but want to maintain reception, they should just make the phones heavier. Simply by keeping the wattage the same, and doubling the weight, you cut the SAR coefficient in half!

Stupidity in action

[DaveV1.0]

So, San Francisco passed a law that required a sticker on a common product showing a rating of something most people do not understand or even know about, that has not been shown to have any health consequences, and offers no guidance or explanation. And, it is all to placate some paranoid idiots and will result in ignorant hypochondriacs going bonkers.

This isn't FUD. It is blatant fear mongering and deliberate risk miscommunication.

If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Rooked_One]

its better safe than sorry. Take the oil rig disaster. Had *PROPER* precautions been taken, it wouldn't have happened. Same with that brain cancer you are hoping not to get. It might hit your testicles as well - think about where that iPhone that never stops transmitting data is right now.

Count me in with the "nut jobs" who would rather think in FUTURE tense and could be wrong than thinking only in present tense and thinking the outcome is always going to be "on my side."

Ignorance may be bliss, but its no way to live your life. Hey, I just came up with that - I would say that's a pretty good notable quotable, eh?

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[John Hasler]

> its better safe than sorry.

Right. What if living in houses causes cancer? It's never been proven that it doesn't. Better live outside.

> Count me in with the "nut jobs"...

Ok.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[DaveV1.0]

What if living in houses causes cancer?

In some parts of the country it does. Have you forgotten about radon gas?

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Bigjeff5]

its better safe than sorry. Take the oil rig disaster. Had *PROPER* precautions been taken, it wouldn't have happened.

To be fair though, the government signed off on every step BP took leading up to the spill, so turning these things over to the government to manage obviously doesn't help a damn thing.

There also happens to be zero evidence to support the idea that cell phone radiation is harmful, which stem from radio technology which has been around for 70 years. In all that time, we have only identified a few applications of radiation that are potentially harmful to humans. Microwaves are about the minimum, and are much more intense than cell phone radiation, and even that is so safe we have a microwave generating box to cook food. After that is infra-red radiation, also known as heat, which is potentially dangerous in very high concentrations (aka fire). Visible light is potentially dangerous if intense enough - see lasers. At UV and above, radiation becomes dangerous on a generic level in large quantities. X-rays, gamma rays, etc fall into this category, and even then we can withstand large quantities of said radiation without any adverse effects.

If you have a problem with cell phones, then you should also have a problem with walkie talkies, AM/FM radio, WiFi, and broadcast television, because they are all about the same and all just as harmless.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Rooked_One]

my father worked for one of the large corps you've heard of that was bought out by BP.

He worked on methods of undersea drilling and always wondered what they would do if something like this happened. Their answer was "dunno." He did say that his company had better safe guards and didn't cut as many corners however.

they are all about the same

famous last words... I'm not an alarmist - just one who would like to play it safe. I don't know if cell phones cause cancer. It hasn't been proven or dis-proven. Time will tell - that is if the powers that be don't wack anyone who might prove something in a way that doesn't benefit them.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Rooked_One]

Unfortunately, we know that UV rays cause cancer, so we can't live outside now can we - especially with the UV ray's at their highest in human history, thanks to... HUMANS. For what? FOR NOT PLANNING AHEAD.

But go ahead and ignore the future, and go ahead and quote me and put "ok."

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[ImABanker]

Studies have shown that nearly all of people who contracted cancer had lived in a house within the past 5 years. I'm surprised there isnt more of an uproar.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[geekoid]

OK, lets thinkg about what you said.

People ignored known safety protocol to stop something they knew had a high likely hood of happening Based on some of what the engineers had said, it was a pretty high risk.

The second paragraph deals with something shown to have no correlation of happening.

The two don't go together.

Hell, you should go live underground because a meteor could fall out of the sky. It is far more likely to be killed by meteor while wrestling a polar bear and a black bear then it is to get cancer from cell phones.

In short, we have a very good idea of the risks from cell phone use, and they are as close to zero as you can reasonably gt regarding anything in th real world.
we are not ignorant regarding the risks from cell phone use.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[geekoid]

You can't plan ahead for what you don't know.

Plus there is the difference between planning ahead, and making decisions counter to all evidence.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Rooked_One]

Absolutely. But you cannot ignore the obvious - such as - we know certain wavelengths are dangerous. Does the cellphone wavelength fall into dangerous? It might even be good for you! However, I fall on the side of caution.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[tehdaemon]

Really? You fall on the side of caution? Are those wavelengths that our eyes see as 'red' dangerous? Just to be safe, I think you should stop wearing red shirts, and never, ever go near a red car. Do you avoid black cats? You never know, you might have some bad luck afterwards.

Thing is, we know why some wavelengths are dangerous, and why. Cellphone wavelengths are only harmful if the power levels are high enough to heat up the target and cook it. (microwave ovens!) Visible light wavelengths have far more energy than cell phones, and they are not dangerous either. The red light from you red shirt in full sunlight, has more energy, both the individual photons, and the total energy of all of the photons, than your cellphone emits at full power. If your red shirt didn't give you cancer, your phone won't either.

There is no reason to show caution about spilling salt, or having a black cat cross our path - we know that these things do not cause bad luck. Likewise, there is no reason to show caution about cell phone wavelengths, they do not cause cancer. Cannot ignore the obvious, yeah, right. You are ignoring what is obvious to any half-intelligent non-ignorant person on the planet.

Did I just feed a troll?

T

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Deefburger]

Fine logic. No problem for you or me. EXCEPT that you now wish for me and everybody else to adhere to the same logic and conduct our own lives in YOUR way? Bite Me. Having foresight and knowledge is not the same thing as a guess and a law. Using it to justify forcing change on everyone else, no matter how right you think you are, is not a solution. Government mandates are not solutions. They are compulsions. Show me real knowledge of the problem, not a legal compulsion and a guess.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Deefburger]

The Miracles of Governance! Saved (in the future) from certain peril. In Australia and New Zealand they are trying to save themselves from certain masterbation by regulating the Internet. "We're stopping the porn to save our children!" "We're ending the terrorism by stopping everybody." "We're ending world hunger by taking taxes" "We're improving education by dumbing down the books." "We're making everybody equal by making everybody equally ineffective" There! Fixed that for ya!

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Deefburger]

Better safe than sorry depends on how you make yourself safe. Jump from the frying pan into the fire and you'll be just as sorry.

Re:If there is anything i've learned this year...

[Rooked_One]

Did I just feed a troll?

No, you showed what you thought. If you have to ask if you are feeding the troll, look in the mirror.

Re:Dear Sir

[hardburn]

And if cell phones were several times more powerful than they actually were, the head-in-the-microwave experiment would mean something.

Really?

[Wyatt Earp]

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/iphone_user_guide.pdf

Theres nothing in there that says an inch.

iPhone_Product_Info_Guide.pdf

Says for measurement purposes, it was tested at 5/8 inches away from the body.

Shouldn't they have warnings against

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Light bulbs and sun light? I mean the photos in both of those have large numbers of photons in the visible range. Those are quite a bit more energetic than microwaves so logically you'd think they'd be more dangerous. (Oh I'm sorry, logic doesn't come into it.)

Re:Shouldn't they have warnings against

[bzipitidoo]

Apparently, logic doesn't come into discussions about cell phone radiation either. They do have warnings against sunlight, which has its dangers, as I'm sure you know. Even light bulbs are suspect. It's thought that light bulbs enable too much nighttime activity, which combined with the light itself throws off our circadian rhythms.

We ought to find out just what cell phones do to us. It may not be all bad news either. One study showed it actually helps rats with Alzheimer's. Still bad in a way, because such a study shows that the radiation does have effects, contrary to what the telecom industry wants to believe. Another study suggested it could be the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. Maybe. The only thing that is obvious is that the industry has a motive to suppress research about possible harmful effects. And would they do that? You bet! And they've been far too successful in confusing the issue, or we'd likely know much more.

There's a long track record of business foolishly squelching such science. Used to be that no one knew of the dangers of tobacco and radiation. We should have known sooner than we did. As late as the 1990's, when everyone knew better, tobacco companies were still trying to deny that their products were harmful. In the early 1900s, the Radium Girls were assured that their work environment was safe, even when the management knew it wasn't-- and protected themselves but not their workers. All the Radium Girls died of cancer. Watches with dials that glow in the dark because they are radioactive, are not made any more. The entertainment industry is still demonizing sharing as "piracy", and still doing all they can to prop up a broken and dead business model. Builders build too close to creeks with designs that are not adequate, then leave the owners and the cities to deal with the foundation problems this causes down the road. I still see creeks being straightened and turned into drainage ditches, to "reclaim" land, despite abundant research showing it's a bad idea, as it causes greater erosion, and magnifies flash floods. Exxon and peers tried to deny climate change, and have had entirely too much success. They studied the tobacco companies not for a lesson in business ethics, but to use and improve upon their methods of obscuring the issues! They love blaming government for "not doing their jobs", after they themselves did all they could to undermine the government's ability to police them. Need I do more than mention the financial industry? There are many honest businesses out there, but as a whole, the business world has little sense of responsibility to anything other than the immediate bottom line, and it's a real shame.

1.6 W/kg?

[pclminion]

I weight 81 kg. So my maximum safe absorption absorption is 130 watts. What kind of cell phone can pump out 130 watts of RF? Can somebody send me a new keyboard, I just shot coffee all over mine.

Re:1.6 W/kg?

[gblackwo]

The coefficient is the wattage of the cell phone over the weight of the cellphone. Why would it have to do with your body weight?

Re:1.6 W/kg?

[pclminion]

Because who gives a shit how much the phone weighs? What does that have to do with how "harmful" the radiation is? if that's really how they are defining it, then somebody owes me ANOTHER keyboard.

Re:1.6 W/kg?

[hoboroadie]

From TFA:
Cellphones can't have a specific absorption rate (SAR) -- the amount of radio waves absorbed by the user's body -- greater than 1.6 watts per kilogram.

IANAE but I think that's where "body weight" entered the discussion.

Fun with the Dentist

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you hear the xray machine go on, yell "Owww!"

They love jokes like that!

Re:Dear Sir

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee that of all the things that might come about because you've stuck your head in a microwave oven, cancer won't be one of them. Why? Because nonionizing radiation is nonionizing. You'll probably get burned, because microwave ovens are far more powerful than a cell phone. And sure, a cell phone *could* cause some heating in your head, only we've got this really cool thing called "a circulatory system" that's going to disperse that heat.

So basically, suck it.

Move along,nothing to see here.

[bickerdyke]

Over here, the SAR has to be noted with the technical details for at least 10 years now. Not a cellphone less was sold.

Re:Move along,nothing to see here.

[DaveV1.0]

But, do you have as many vocal, paranoid, hypochondriac idiots over there?

Re:Move along,nothing to see here.

[John Hasler]

> But, do you have as many vocal, paranoid, hypochondriac idiots over there?

They have many, many more. Consider the "frankenfoods" crap, for example.

Re:Dear Sir

[wagnerrp]

It will kill you by heating and denaturing the proteins in your brain, but it will not give you cancer. Only ionizing radiation has sufficient power to damage DNA.

ITS ABUOT TIME

[bbbaldie]

I can't post in all caps, filter error. Original post: "I used to be prefetcly nromal untiull i got my scell pohne jimisboss.com"

Clueless in San Francisco (and elsewhere)

[joeyblades]

I always marvel at those people who are concerned about cell phones and cancer...

These are the same people who insit on driving and carrying on a conference call at the same time. I got news for you. There is a high probability that your cell phone will be a direct cause of your death... but it has nothing to do with radiation.

And you pedestrians, don't act so smug. A few weeks ago I saw a walkin' talkin' fool step out in front of a bus without looking (lucky for him, a conscious observer yanked him back from the clutches of death).

Believe me, radiation is the least of your worries...

Re:Clueless in San Francisco (and elsewhere)

[RajivSLK]

And you pedestrians, don't act so smug. A few weeks ago I saw a walkin' talkin' fool step out in front of a bus without looking (lucky for him, a conscious observer yanked him back from the clutches of death).

I have coined a new word for types of people: Zombestrians. I see zombestrians everywhere now days, either on talking phones, texting or listening to iPods.

Re:Clueless in San Francisco (and elsewhere)

[geekoid]

Why do you clump the idiots in with everyone. Most people use cell phones and do neither of those things.

Re:Clueless in San Francisco (and elsewhere)

[JumpDrive]

If you haven't noticed all the people who are doing this. It may be because you are a
ZOMBESTRIAN or
CELLZOMBE

Re:Clueless in San Francisco (and elsewhere)

[joeyblades]

The other day, I got stuck at an intersection and noticed a lot of people talking on their phones while driving. It's a busy intersection on my way home from work, so the next day I counted the number of people I could SEE using talking on their cell phones for the duration of one red light (one direction). Note, this was people holding handsets to their ears. I could not tell if others were talking hands free and one or two might have even been texting, for all I know. Over the next couple of days, I just counted the total number of cars through that same intersection at about the same time of day for one light's duration, just to get an approximate average. Here are the stats:

Average number of cars for one light : 180

Number of people talking on their cell phone handsets : 79

I tried another experiment two Saturday's ago. I was out and about in public and decided to play a little observation game. I observed pedestrians talking on their cell phones. Actually, I watched the people around them. If I observed other people having to maneuver to avoid collision, or navigate around the caller, or make faces, gestures, or other visible signs of frustration because the person on the phone was not being as observant as they needed to be.

I saw 4 or 5 collisions, more than a dozen near misses, one guy nearly tipped over a baby carriage, and many, many hand gestures from hapless near victims.

In nearly every case, not only was the caller oblivious to the event immediately before, most weren't even aware in the aftermath...

So, is my conclusion that most people on cell phones are idiots? Of course not. My conclusion is that most people in general are idiots. Cell phones just happen to be a powerful enabler for idiotic behavior.

Re:Clueless in San Francisco (and elsewhere)

[joeyblades]

I call them cellular automata...

Engineers are ALWAYS right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always said that off-shore oil drilling was a very bad idea, but as usual the experts have scientifically proven that I'm an ignorant jackass. I'll try to stifle it in the future.

Re:Engineers are ALWAYS right!

[gblackwo]

An engineer wasn't likely the one who decided an emergency valve wasn't needed for a measly 500k. That sounds like management.

Re:Engineers are ALWAYS right!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Engineers are absolutely sure that would prevent a civilization-threatening catastrophe!
Because they're ALWAYS right!

Only a jackass (like me) would consider ANY other possibility.

Re:Engineers are ALWAYS right!

[evilviper]

And the Engineers are absolutely sure that would prevent a civilization-threatening catastrophe!
Because they're ALWAYS right!

No. Engineers are sure that is the only thing that would prevent a certain type of problem, and therefore omitting it leaves you open to catastrophe on the (statistically small) chance that particular problem arises.

Only a jackass (like me) would consider ANY other possibility.

By assuming you know every subject better than the experts, you certainly do make a jackass out of yourself. And by opting to not take their advice, you're proving how short-sighted and irresponsible you are.

Yep, just more anti-radiation crap

[Sycraft-fu]

I remember another form of this from when I was a kid. My mom was worried because she heard about claims that kids who lived near power lines got cancer. Our house when I was a young child (until around age 6) was very near some high voltage distribution lines (they very large long haul kind). This was based on next to no evidence, just an "OMG radiation is evil!!!" mentality. Never mind the waves coming from the power lines were bigger than me (60Hz EM waves are like 5 million meters long).

Well there have now been plenty of studies done, I'm probably a data point in one of them. We have people who lived under power lines 30, 40, 50, 60, etc years ago and show no increase in cancer rates. It was nothing buy unfounded paranoia.

This is just more of the same.

Re:Yep, just more anti-radiation crap

[PagosaSam]

Yup. The wavelength of 60 Hz is 5M meters, full wave.

Re:Dear Sir

[Lvdata]

I worked at a microwave oven repair place, and a co worker would make it run with the door open, and put his hand in. I never did as I was worried about having a small spot in my hand get super heated due to a poor spread on the microwaves. He stopped when he forgot to take off a wedding ring and got a bad burn. After training I never worried about a microwave or other RF non-ionizing radiation.

Oh jeez

[Starfleet Command]

and I guess they want signs at gas stations too, from all the massive fire starting cell phone caused ESD

Re:Dear Sir

[Anonymous Coward]

It will kill you by heating and denaturing the proteins in your brain, but it will not give you cancer. Only ionizing radiation has sufficient power to damage DNA.

Direct exposure to ionizing radiation will cause DNA damage. Indirect exposure, such as that used to irradiate food, will not. As the name suggests, ionizing radiation effects only the electrons of atoms. It creates ions. Not good for living things. Remove the exposure, however, and whatever was irradiated is perfectly safe to handle, eat, or throw at a monkey. You choose. Nuclear radiation will sure as hell cause DNA damage as well. However, nuclear radiation effects the nucleus of atoms. This is also not good for living things and creates an end product that will be "radioactive". So, yeah, not only ionizing.

It's bollocks

[Guillaume le Btard]

For goodness sake, all these warnings are just plain bollocks. Why do governments allow fairy-tales like the whole cell phone radiation thing to spread among the population. It is a disgrace, any serious engineer will know these rumors are not true.

Mexican Dentists

[wsanders]

Actually, you should check out Mexican dentists (and doctors.) Sailboat liveaboards and other adventurers who spend extended periods of time down there swear by them. A good many are reported to have US training, speak English, and your cash expense could be less than your insurance deductible.

Science Deniers

[pudge]

Why does San Francisco hate science?

Re:Science Deniers

[JumpDrive]

What are you talking about? This is the home of quantum metaphysics. Without them we wouldn't have known about the healing power of pyramids and rocks.

Re:Science Deniers

[pudge]

Snicker. :-)

Banana Equivalent Dose of Cell Phone Radiation?

[daten]

I'm curious what the measure of cell phone radiation exposure is in bananas?

From wikipedia:

"""
Many foods are naturally radioactive, and bananas are particularly so, due to the radioactive potassium-40 they contain. The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie, is typical). By comparing the exposure from these events to a banana equivalent dose, a more realistic assessment of the actual risk can sometimes be obtained.

The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems.
"""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

Re:Banana Equivalent Dose of Cell Phone Radiation?

[ch-chuck]

Actually that's a good question - but it's comparing non-ionizing radiation (electric field) and ionizing radiation (beta decay radiation - emission of an electron or positron) - but more research is required to find the 'Banana Equivilent Dose' of a typical cell phone call.

I remember one woman in the 80's who was concerned about food exposed to microwave 'radiation'.

Re:Banana Equivalent Dose of Cell Phone Radiation?

[pslam]

The banana equivalent dose is 0. Cell phone radiation is non-ionizing.

Not conclusive

[Benfea]

I personally doubt they're going to find a link, but to claim that a negative has been conclusively demonstrated is pretty far off base. It is way to early in the game to declare with any certainty one conclusion over the other.

Cell phones became cheap enough for prolonged use by large numbers of people relatively recently. We're decades out from having the sort of data necessary to really say "Yeah, there's definitely no link" or "Yeah, there's definitely a link".

Poor phone reception INCREASES radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's disgusting that on a nerd site that someone writing about cellphones gets the basics wrong.

If reception is low, then the phone has to increase its power, zapping the ear and brain with radio waves. (Which does absolutely nothing to the brain).

Smoking marijuana causes more cancer than cellphones. Unprotected anal sex causes more cancer than cellphones. Getting fat and being a lazy slob causes more cancer too.

Explains a lot

[cleepa]

AT&T have obviously known this for years, hence their piss poor reception. Always looking out for the customer, eh ;-)

Worse than Cigarettes

[MidnightBrewer]

Congratulations, they've officially created a health warning that will be more useless than the surgeon general's warning on cigarettes.

Ring Ring Ring

[RivenAleem]

Bananaphone!

Re:poisionous

[conureman]

Green potatoes in fact, have toxic oxalic acid in them. I believe it is still toxic after cooking. This is the only fact in the same "vein" as radiation being harmful. Prudent people should reduce their exposure.

Safe radiation exposure

[Anonymous Coward]

At mobile phone power levels, the rate at which localized heating occurs is MUCH slower than the rate at which the body can dissipate heat.

If you're working in close proximity to high power microwave transmitters (on the tower or on the site), then it's worth worrying about radiation exposure.

Cancer isn't the concern though, it's localized heating, starting with your testes and eyeballs.