Slashdot Mirror


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."

9 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Hey Gavin by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  2. I think you might need a new dentist by mbessey · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  3. Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

        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. :)

     

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  4. Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  5. Re:poor reception by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon by sleeping143 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:If there is anything i've learned this year... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    What if living in houses causes cancer?

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

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  8. Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  9. Re:Banana Equivalent Dose of Cell Phone Radiation? by pslam · · Score: 2, Informative

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