Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cell Phone Group Sues San Francisco Over Radiation Law

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-not-a-toomah dept.

crimeandpunishment writes "The wireless industry wants to put San Francisco's cell phone radiation law on hold. An industry trade group filed a lawsuit Friday trying to stop the law, which requires cell phone stores to display how much radio energy each phone emits. The group says the law, which is the first of its kind in the country, supersedes the authority of the Federal Communications Commission, and will mislead consumers into thinking one phone is safer than another."

49 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. What science is behind this? by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At some point you stop and realize that some of these people are out after a power trip and have no interest the public welfare. I consider myself pretty pro-consumer, usually support class actions and that kind of thing, but I look at this and have to ask 'what science is behind this?'

    Seriously, I want these cell phone fearing Luddites to fail in a public way, to be exposed to the world for the scam artists that they are. Why? Because Luddites like these make normal pro-consumer people look like nut-cases by association. Just like Greenpeace has done more environmental harm than any company in history with their self righteous and reckless actions.

    Makes me wish the judge could pass the following sentence in court "Luddites be gone, back to your cave and never to see civilization again"

    1. Re:What science is behind this? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just like Greenpeace has done more environmental harm than any company in history with their self righteous and reckless actions.

      Citation needed. If you can make me believe that they've done more damage than Monsanto, Union Carbide, or BP, then you can probably make me believe anything. I'm willing to believe they're a bunch of idiots for the most part, but that doesn't make them more damaging. Mostly they want people to not do stuff.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:What science is behind this? by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree wholeheartedly. These folks are exposed to electromagnetic radiation on all sides, every day of their lives. They get it from the power lines, their appliances, and every other powered device on the planet. Unless they live in a cave (cage), these folks are deluding themselves. Of course video's like these don't help the stupidity...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr6SbYpTYM&feature=related

      These guys were even too dumb to use a hotplate. Looks like they used a lighter instead ;)

    3. Re:What science is behind this? by locallyunscene · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science of the original law notwithstanding, the two arguments against are interesting. Having a state have more detailed regulations than the FCC is bad? Umm, that's how most laws/regulations should work.

      I think it's true that it may cause people to choose one phone over another, but it's just a simple fact about the phone. The "hypocritical luddites" can have a phone that has less "radio radiation" and anyone that knows better can still buy whatever phone they like. It's the same argument used against putting GMO labels on food. If it's something the consumer wants to know about, even if misguided, who are we to tell them "it's not important". Yes it can be used to spread FUD and yes it has adverse effects, but in general giving the consumer more information about a product is a good thing for the market.

    4. Re:What science is behind this? by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have time to find a citation at the moment, but I'll lay out the math for you. Take the pre-nuclear scare rate of building nuclear power plants. That number gives you a ratio to the power grid and power needs. Extend that ratio to what it would be today if Greenpeace hadn't killed nuclear power plants in 70's.

      Now realize that instead of everyone singing kumbyah and living in caves they decided to be part of civilization instead. Now realize that their power came from coal burning power plants instead of the nuclear power plants that would have built in their place.

      Realize that the average coal plant releases more radiation into the atmosphere every year than three mile island did in it's meltdown. Take the radiation, the sulfur and all the other pollutants that were put into our environment by coal power plants. Add those numbers up, add up the number of injuries, add up the wanton devastation caused by things like mountain top mining and the reclassification of streams to no longer be wetlands. The coal industry today would be dead and buried if it wasn't for Greenpeace.

      Run the numbers for the last several decades, let the math speak for itself. Do the same for places like Germany where Greenpeace has done even more damage to the environment. I then challenge you to find any company anywhere in history that comes anywhere near that.

    5. Re:What science is behind this? by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You raise an interesting point about making information available to the public to make their own choices. In general I have to concede that you have a good point. The only problem is where do you draw the line, how much science does there need to be to justify having it at all? I don't think I'll ever forget the warning label on a can of pure oxygen that stated the 'contents are known to be a possible cause of cancer in the state of California'.

    6. Re:What science is behind this? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have time to find a citation at the moment, but I'll lay out the math for you. Take the pre-nuclear scare rate of building nuclear power plants. That number gives you a ratio to the power grid and power needs. Extend that ratio to what it would be today if Greenpeace hadn't killed nuclear power plants in 70's.

      False dichotomy. PV solar panels were known to repay the energy cost of their production in eight years or less in the 1970s, and vertical-axis wind turbines were used by ancient Romans to pump water uphill (with an Archimedes screw.) Meanwhile, the plants that they were railing against probably should NOT be built; they're all extremely antiquated designs which unnecessarily produce large amounts of waste. I am against building any plants that don't involve fuel reprocessing, myself. That doesn't mean I'm pro-coal. You're saying that since the evil fuckers who run the power monopolies will only consider building shitty nuke plants that it's Greenpeace's fault that we don't put any genuinely cleaner power production online and I just can't agree with you.

      Run the numbers for the last several decades, let the math speak for itself.

      Since your entire argument is based on a bogus premise, math isn't really the problem here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:What science is behind this? by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't more detailed, it's just more strict, but unlike the recent pollution spat in California, there is no proof that radiation from a cell phone is harmful (as opposed to auto emissions). There is a reason that the FCC has jurisdiction here. It would make things nearly impossible for a company to sell a product at a national level if every state had different standards. Imagine if USB devices had different standards for 50 states. It would be an absolute nightmare, and not only for the vendor.

      If the radiation level is far below the 'dangerous' level, then how is it even relevant unless they are measuring every bit of EM they are receiving from every electronic device they are exposed to? If the science behind a municipal decision isn't sound, but it gives the impression that it is, it can create FUD just by it's existence. In some cases, it is necessary to have standards at a federal level.

      http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/8047/

      In the case of auto/pollution standards stink (no pun intended) raised in California, there is an obvious public benefit to stricter standards, which California felt wasn't being met at the federal level. There are obvious health risks to exposure to those emissions, and countless studies proving that. Cell phones, on the contrary, have zero proof that they are dangerous to the public health.

    8. Re:What science is behind this? by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only false dichotomy here is the one you just presented. Solar panels were not viable for any widespread usage back in the 70's. They are only now starting to become viable, and even then only with significant government subsidies. Look at the public subsidies for solar power in places like Germany and Spain and you'll see that their solar panels have come at a very expensive cost. I say this as someone who likely put solar panels on my own house in the next couple of years.

      Solar power in most environments only supplies spot power, much like wind power. They typically do very little when the sun is down (molten salt solutions that allow for night time use are just now coming into use). In case you haven't noticed society needs power outside of those times it is sunny or windy.

      Certainly nuclear power plants should reprocess fuel. Your point about plants is moot though as greenpeace has consistently managed to kill funding for new and improved designs across different nations for decades. Greenpeace has never invested a single dollar into renewable energies, (you know trying to solve these problems) instead choosing that they prefer 'direct action' and political influence. You still haven't run the math, I think your afraid of the answers you'll get.

    9. Re:What science is behind this? by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's really no science behind it at all. This isn't about science, it's about ignorance and fear. It's nothing new, really.

      In a very real sense all these crazy "OMG CELL PHONES! POWER LINES! VACCINE!" hysterics reflects the high rate of change in our society and peoples inability to keep up with it all. The average person has NO idea what the electro-magnetic spectrum is or about the nature of knowledge. The cliche's tossed about are along the lines of "well.. they just don't know everything about these things! What if it turns out the thing DOES cause cancer! Better safe than sorry!" and then pull some random fact like how nobody knew smoking was bad for you 100 years ago (which isn't exactly true).

      That's maybe a better attitude than we used to have that "oh it's all perfectly safe, that asbestos, agent orange, and DDT won't hurt anyone!", but not by much. People are very very bad at understanding the everyday risks around them and at understanding the nature of knowledge and the nature of scientific inquiry.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:What science is behind this? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Run the numbers for the last several decades of building, running and decommissioning the nuclear power plants too. As France found they are not 'free' or 'cheap'. As a state backed project they are a very neat national bragging right, but they are expensive.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    11. Re:What science is behind this? by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only problem is where do you draw the line, how much science does there need to be to justify having it at all?

      None. If there's reason to believe that people would like to be able to discriminate between products containing or not containing ground up spiders then it's legitimate to require labels to let them make the choice, regardless of the health benefits or lack of health problems associated with ground up spiders. Same goes for any other aspect of a product. When there's enough interest to act is a political decision, not a scientific one.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    12. Re:What science is behind this? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      It's the same argument used against putting GMO labels on food. If it's something the consumer wants to know about, even if misguided, who are we to tell them "it's not important". Yes it can be used to spread FUD and yes it has adverse effects, but in general giving the consumer more information about a product is a good thing for the market.

      Only if the information is not misleading, or misrepresenting the facts. In this case it seems very clear to me that putting labels on cell phones that tell people the emissions levels of the phone is extremely misleading. It conveys the idea that radio emissions are somehow harmful, which they aren't. Consumers in general are very poorly informed, and DON'T know anything about the actual studies which have shown no even correlation between cell phones and disease. So this idea that's out their that people can "make their own decision!" is just plain wrong, since the vast vast majority of consumers don't have the required knowledge or background to start making those informed decisions.

      Remember, information and labels exist in a context, not an information vacuum. How many products tell you about how they have "more fiber" or "less sodium" or simply the required nutrition labels? All those labels are regulated by the FDA and have to have some scientific backing for health effects. The point being, people have come to expect that labeling the product itself has backing, ESPECIALLY if it's a government mandate like in SF.

      --
      AccountKiller
    13. Re:What science is behind this? by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even worse, this is an area where there is a significant faction convinced that the truth is being covered up, much like the tobacco companies successfully did for years with the relationship between smoking and cancer. The prior success of this strategy by powerful corporate interests means that people have a justifiable lack of faith in the published science.

      So give people the information, let them make their own decisions, and if they don't get cancer while the rest of us do, they can say I told you so, and the rest of us can feel like the idiot smokers with lung cancer did. Or not. Whichever outcome happens, the labeling seems like a minimally intrusive requirement.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:What science is behind this? by stalkedlongtime · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're wrong. Shielding which is effective against high frequency electric fields can also be effective against high frequency magnetic fields. The changing magnetic field induces eddy currents in the shielding which creates opposing magnetic fields, shaping and directing the intruding magnetic field.

      Lower magnetic fields can also be shaped with high permeability materials.

      Here is a helpful link which explains the issues surrounding electric/magnetic shielding in more detail.

      http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/emc/tutorials/Shielding02/Practical_Shielding.html

    15. Re:What science is behind this? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Solar panels were not viable for any widespread usage back in the 70's (sic). They are only now starting to become viable, and even then only with significant government subsidies

      Photovoltaic solar panels for power generation? Sure... Solar panels to heat/cool your home and your water? That science has been around for hundreds of years...

    16. Re:What science is behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "That number gives you a ratio to the power grid and power needs. Extend that ratio to what it would be today if Greenpeace hadn't killed nuclear power plants in 70's."

      Greenpeace? You're giving them way too much credit.

      Greenpeace didn't kill nuclear plants in the 1970s, Three Mile Island did and Chernobyl after that. Yes, I'm well aware that Three Mile Island didn't release much radioactive material (the containment structure worked) and Chernobyl was an inherently unsafe design (and had precious little containment), but that doesn't change the public perception of these events: that despite assurances that nuclear power was safe it wasn't as safe as claimed. Furthermore, even the engineers involved with Three Mile Island were surprised with the extent of damage in the core once they started cutting it out. It was a partial meltdown, and it could have been a lot worse. It took, what, a few years to clean up after it? No, longer than that. 30 and ongoing. A few years ago they took the core pieces out of water storage in Idaho and put them into dry storage now that they've cooled down enough. As per agreement between the State of Idaho and the federal government they still have to be moved out of Idaho to some permanent site that is yet to be determined (see below), so the ultimate costs of the accident still aren't fully accounted for. The accident is still costing money and will cost plenty more.

      The other thing that stifled nuclear power was the construction costs for utilities (HUGE capital expenses and MASSIVE cost overruns), and the fact that there still isn't a permanent storage site for high-level waste even though the government has been collecting money from nuclear power utilities since at least the 1980s in order to build it (i.e. is Yucca Mountain dead as a site or not? And if dead where's the new site, and when is it going to be on line? By 2030 or so?).

      I know that nuclear power is still a good option and I think it has a future if people get off their asses and A) solve some of the technical/political challenges, and B) either get over the NIMBY attitude and let nuclear power flourish, or C) invest HEAVILY in the other alternatives. Most people have no clue of the energy challenges we're going to face in the next few decades if nuclear power is left out of the choices to replace oil's eventual decline. People need to accept it now so that there is time to get building before things get to a crisis. This isn't something that will be solved with a few wind turbines. It would take thousands upon thousands, and people will gripe about where those are sited too!

      However, despite all that I'd wager the public appetite for nuclear power wouldn't be any better if Greenpeace didn't exist. People have more than enough valid reasons to be skeptical of it. I mean, face it. If they couldn't site a geological repository at Yucca Mountain, in the middle of a desert area that already had hundreds of nuclear bomb tests, then where the heck are they going to put it? And without a solution for long-term storage nuclear power's future is uncertain in the USA.

    17. Re:What science is behind this? by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually an educated consumer is bad for the market as it functions today. Just like it's bad for today's politician who depends on deceit and FUD to win the election. There's a reason they're making all those cutbacks in education.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    18. Re:What science is behind this? by molnarcs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't have time to find a citation at the moment, but I'll lay out the math for you.

      [...]

      Now realize that instead [...] Now realize that their power [...]

      Realize that the average [...]

      Sir, your post is simply WILD SPECULATION, nothing else. Now realize that Greenpace has been traditionally quite strong in France for example (and still is). And look how they destroyed the nuclear industry in France...

      Now lets look at Germany, that started investing in green technologies decades ago. They were one of the few countries with a long term vision of becoming world leaders in these technologies as demand for them grows. Today, along with Japan, they are there, and already started to reap the benefits.

      The most aggravating part of your post is that you begin your sentences with "Realize that..." You sound like the githzeray in NWN2 (though she started with the annoying "Know that..." The point is, that you sound like a religious nutcase, with hating Greenpeace being at the center of your religion.

      The parent asked for proof... now if you consider pulling wild stuff out of your ass as proof, than your signature is quite ironic indeed ("Wikipedia, the concept that persistent opinions represent facts").

    19. Re:What science is behind this? by ildon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think about your statement. If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself. At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.

    20. Re:What science is behind this? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed they haven't done as much physical harm as the companies you mention but since the psuedo-scientific ludites took over in the 80's they have helped promote the green movement like Stalin and Mao helped promote socialisim.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:What science is behind this? by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think about your statement.

      Thanks for the suggestion but I actually thought about it before (and while) making it. (And yet I didn't reach the same conclusion as you - how could such a thing happen unless I wasn't thinking???)

      If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself.

      You don't have to list all the real or imagined hazards or contents and imagined non-contents. You have to list the particular qualities that the regulators / legislators have identified as having to be identified. As far as I can tell that's not a particularly extensive list. The real issue is what you have against people knowing the SAR. Is it really just the appalling prospect that they might make choices on a basis you consider to be irrational?

      At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.

      As long as this, rather easily met, requirement applies equally to all producers of cell phones I don't understand what you're going with that.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    22. Re:What science is behind this? by jmrives · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you give Greenpeace far too much credit here. The Greenpeace organization was one of many voices that spoke out against nuclear power plants in the 70s. I would hardly credit them with killing the construction of the plants. If anything, they were one of the least effective voices of the time. A far more significant voice against nuclear proliferation back then was the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Other significant voices include the Clamshell Alliance and the Abalone Alliance. The list of organizations actively protesting against nuclear proliferation back then is quite lengthy. The Three Mile Island incident in 1979 served as a strong rally point for the movement. Now, that said, your assessment of the situation may still be valid. It is quite possible that we would have produced less pollutants had we built more nuclear plants. However, without any real numbers, your argument falls flat in that regard as well.

    23. Re:What science is behind this? by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I shouldn't respond to a troll but a few seconds of Google found some sample numbers
      1. Coal plants emitted 44.7 tons of mercury in 2008.
      2. Coal causes 30,000 deaths every year
      3. Coal shortens another 24,000 lives a year.
      4. Coal pollution has increased 16% since 1992.
      5. Coal emits 25% of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

      Google, it is your friend. Logic, you can learn it. Math, it has power, doesn't follow politics and can free your mind. Quit being a tool and open your damn mind already.

    24. Re:What science is behind this? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greenpeace has never invested a single dollar into renewable energies, (you know trying to solve these problems) instead choosing that they prefer 'direct action' and political influence.

      That's because Greenpeace is all about attention whoring instead of actually improving anything. I watched a few years ago as they bashed Apple constantly for their environmental policies. For as long as I can remember, Apple has been several years ahead of pretty much everybody in the industry in terms of reduction of hazardous materials. Greenpeace was still picking on them. Why? Because iPod is popular. They picked their targets not based on what would actually do the most good or who was doing the most harm, but on who would garner the most attention.

      The net result of this was that they gave good ratings to companies who treated the environment as a PR opportunity and droned on about all the things they planned to do (with no timeline) to help the environment, while bashing a company that was actually doing many of those things and actively working on many of the others. In short, they were doing precisely the opposite of what a respectable environmental organization does. I lost what little respect I had for Greenpeace when I realized that this was happening. To be fair, I never respected them that much....

      Their position on nuclear power is similar. Instead of focusing on the biggest problems---coal, diesel, gasoline---they focus on something that will get them the most attention---nuclear power. In my book, this attention whoring puts them squarely into the "does more harm than good" camp. They've done more to distract the public from the real environmental issues than all the industry-funded think tanks and ad campaigns put together. I would go so far as to say that no single group has done more to *harm* the environmental movement than Greenpeace.

      I'd be willing to bet that if you followed the money, an awful lot of really bad polluters are funding Greenpeace (possibly through shell companies). If the BPs of the world aren't funding Greenpeace, they should be. It's an army of people who are so genuinely clueless that they act like corporate tools and work against their own best interests on a regular basis. Those who would harm the environment truly have no greater friend than Greenpeace, and those corporations might as well acknowledge that.

      There are countless environmental organizations that actually make tangible improvements to our environment. Greenpeace isn't one of them, and the best thing we as a society can do is to treat them like a misbehaving two-year-old---ignore their tantrums until they get bored/tired. There's really no point in doing anything else.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    25. Re:What science is behind this? by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Because greenpeace activists are the ones who run around my city demonstrating against uranium mining and the nuclear industry constantly despite Australia not having a nuclear powerplant and having a government who lack the balls to do anything against public opinion.

      They may not have a direct relationship to coal, but they do their damnest to sway public opinion against nuclear power using outdated facts from the 70s. The fliers they have handed out on that shiny glossy paper that definitely wasn't recycled never one mentioned a modern Lightwater Pressurised Reactor (the kind which can't physically melt down), or designs like the CANDU reactor which could actually make use of the world's current stocks of nuclear waste for power.

      No they do things like take people on fancy tours to the Australian outback and show them the pretty sights, then they show them an open cut uranium mine to make the public all teary. They don't ever show them what a coal mine looks like. They do their best to sway public opinion against nuclear power and as a result our only proposed nuclear powerplant was killed off as an election promise by a new prime minister, and worse now it looks like our only research reactor may have no future either. Mean while we now derive 85% of our current power from brown coal, and the further 8 of our 14 proposed future powerplants are coal, and the remaining are coal seam gas, and coal power with carbon sequestration.

      People fear nuclear power because they don't understand that it's not the 70s anymore. Governments fear nuclear power because they want to be re-elected. This IS because of greenpeace, and thus they are at least in part directly responsible.

    26. Re:What science is behind this? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Were you alive and sentient 50 or 100 years ago? If not, then you just said that you aren't qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

      Perhaps these fall outside of your knowledge, but there are advanced techniques such as reading things that were written at the time and talking to old people that can be used to bring the past to life.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Makes sense by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Given that everything causes cancer in the state of California, it's natural that they are required to do this. I'm glad I live in a state where not everything causes cancer.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The complete list of things that give you cancer:

      Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.


      "not having a twin", "kissing", and "under-arm shaving" are notable.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. How much *ENERGY* the phone radiate? by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are trying to say the phones have to have a label about how much energy they radiate? What, are the stores supposed to have some magical ability to integrate over all time including the future the amount of POWER the phone puts out?

    OR, can the phone sellers say the phone emits zero energy, arguing that at the time the sticker was applied, the phone was off and thus integrating over the time to apply the sticker the phone emitted no RF.

    And are they defining the bandwidth over which this is being reported, or do they expect the sellers to compute blackbody radiation at some standard temperature.

    I'd like to see somebody set up the demo that I saw once at the Very Large Array, where they had a sensitive receiver hooked up to an antenna, measuring the amount of 400MHz your body put out as blackbody radiation - can you imagine the sorts of morons that get excited about this stuff freaking out when they see they themselves are "radioactive"!

    Folks, if RF scares you - DON'T USE A CELLPHONE!

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
    1. Re:How much *ENERGY* the phone radiate? by ntdesign · · Score: 2, Informative

      They want to label the phones with their specific absorption rate, which is average power absorbed per kg of tissue. It's a measurement the FCC already takes, and they mandate a SAR of less than 1.6 W/kg. Of course, the effects of that amount of haven't been shown to be harmful.

    2. Re:How much *ENERGY* the phone radiate? by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Folks, if RF scares you - DON'T USE A CELLPHONE!

      Exactly what I do. I carry around one of those demo units from the store that has no electronics in it. I can open it in public and look cool and hip, and never have to recharge it or get exposed to artificial unnatural radiation (the natural kind can't hurt me, or so I've read on many reputable internet sites, for example that timecube one).

  4. Oh noes! Radiation! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was at the Home Depot today and saw you can buy a device which emits TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY WATTS of ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION! Oooga boooga! The radiation is gonna git ya!

    Link to the monstrosity in question: Home Depot Death Ray

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    1. Re:Oh noes! Radiation! by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In any case, consumer choice and information is a good thing.

      It's a good thing when the information is relevant, sure. It's a bad thing when you're misleading people. Next you'll be wanting warning about autism placed on all vaccines. Sorry, but when your "information" is only there as a way of furthering the agenda of insane conspiracy theorists, it's definitely not a "Good Thing".

  5. Re:OK, I see their point by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, like the "no verified therapeutic claims" you see on quack-medicine advertisements.

    You know the one written in dark gray on a black background in a 6 point font at the very bottom of the screen that flashes up for like 0.25 seconds ?

  6. I just want to watch the video by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where someone tries to explain the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and specific absorption rate to the city council. Probably a lot like trying to explain the internets in my phone to my 88 year old grandmother.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    1. Re:I just want to watch the video by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where someone tries to explain the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and specific absorption rate

      Fire a gun at a tree. What happens to the tree? Your bullet chips a little bit off. If you just do it once, well, the tree can deal with it. Do it quickly enough and you'll start to leave bullets wedged in the tree and the tree will wind up all knotted and twisted in that area. Get out the machine gun and you'll cut the tree in half and kill the tree. This is similar to your body and ionising radiation.

      Now replace the gun with a tennis racquet and lay your best serve on that tree. What happens to the tree? Nothing. Get your best auto-ball-server-machine and pummel that tree for a week. It might end up a little bruised, but if you stop, it'll be as good as new in a week and that's about it. This is similar to your body and non-ionising radiation.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  7. Why isn't there an App for that? by aapold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Geiger Counter app... measures cumulative REM, reminds you to switch ears to minimize overexposure of one ear, etc... it can pay for itself with built-in advertisement for treatment clinics...

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  8. cellphone laws by rossdee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A law requiring all cellphones to have a warning label:

      "use of this device while driving a motor vehicle is dangerous, and against the law in most states"

    Or something, since cellphones have killed more people that way than by the radiation they emit.

    1. Re:cellphone laws by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      cellphones have killed more people that way than by the radiation they emit

      Why? Because if you use it while you're driving, it might explode or something? Otherwise, the cell phones don't kill anybody. The drivers are the ones that kill other people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  9. It is a disclosure requirement, let people by eee_eff · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not a regulation that puts a limit or changes the market in any way, it just requires disclosure of the energy levels of telephones, and there isn't any reason a society cannot require disclosure.

  10. It's worse than you think by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2

    That monster emits "High Energy Photons". (Ok, higher energy photons than any cell phone.) Ban it Ban it Ban it :)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  11. Re:It's non-ionizing and harmless by stalkedlongtime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's some evidence that high frequency noise or high frequency RF has biological effects even if it's non-ionizing. For example:

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

    "A 2002 study by Genesis Laboratories Inc. does lend some credence to the ability of electronic repellent devices to repel certain pests in controlled environments. Preliminary study of white-footed mice behavior in the test apparatus demonstrated a significant preference for the non-activated chamber among both sexes."

    Also, how do you think your microwave oven works? It uses dielectric heating to rapidly vibrate (and thereby heat) the water molecules in food. Guess what - dielectric heating works on you too, and there is no cut-off range; even low frequency RF has some dielectric heating effect on the water and some body tissues.

    And dielectric heating can cause cataracts.

    Just throwing some actual facts into this discussion.

  12. bring it on by liquidsin · · Score: 4, Funny

    i'm eager to hear hipsters arguing over who has fewer bars.

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  13. Why the lawsuit? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why exactly is telling people MORE about the product they are buying a bad thing?

    Sure just writing how many watts each phone emits might not reveal the whole picture, but the manufacturer can always include the frequency of the emissions and any other relevant information in the product description. It's not like the law prevents you from revealing anything except the power.

    The manufacturer could also try to *gasp* educate the public - You have a study that shows the frequency of your phones emissions is not harmful while another phone will cause you to grow an extra ear within the next 2 years? Publish it, include it in your add campaign,... It might actually give you a bigger market share.

    I don't see why any court should limit the amount of information customers have about products they are buying.

  14. Bullocks! by pizzach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bullocks! Customers do have a right to this information! Companies can use the label to educate by just showing a comparison of how much radiation a person gets from:

    • Being outside in the sun for 30 minutes
    • Doing a 5 minute phone call
    • A 1 hour trip on a plane
    • Getting an x-ray.

    If Companies cannot spin this, it is their own damn fault. Not the consumers. Information wants to be FREEEEEEE and this is an excellent way to *start* educating the public. With the precedent that Phillip-Morris set of hiding information, if the cell phone manufacturers fight this too hard, things will be much worse for them. They will appear to be hiding something regardless of the truth of the situation.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  15. Re:It's non-ionizing and harmless by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also, how do you think your microwave oven works? It uses dielectric heating to rapidly vibrate (and thereby heat) the water molecules in food. Guess what - dielectric heating works on you too, and there is no cut-off range; even low frequency RF has some dielectric heating effect on the water and some body tissues. Just throwing some actual facts into this discussion. ...

    Just throwing some actual facts into this discussion.

    Right on man! Btw, did you know that your oven - you know, the normal kind that cooks food - emits infrared radiation? And your lighbulbs also emit infrared radiation? And there's no cutoff range; even low amounts of infrared radiation have some effects on water and some body tissues. You don't want to get cooked like a roast, do ya? Might wanna think about tossing out those bulbs.

  16. Because it is a bullshit scare tactic by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They know people will see "Radiation" and say "Oh shit it is going to kill me!" As the city council well demonstrated, people do not have a good understanding of different kinds of radiation. It will lead to consumer paranoia, perhaps lower sales, and worst of all bogus lawsuits. The hypochondriac types will feel sick, and blame the phones (this happens all the time with WiFi) and they'll want to sue.

    Also there's a good possibility the label will be required to be done in a scary manner. So not something like "this device emits up to 3 watts of 1900MHz RF," but more like "this device emits up to 3 watts of radiation which is known to the city of San Francisco to cause cancer."

    Over labeling isn't a good thing.

  17. Why not? by gillbates · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly, I want to know the power output of my phone - and the selectivity and sensitivity of the receiver as well.

    At least with this law, consumers will have some indication of which phones are the most likely to drop calls. By measuring the emitted radiation (as opposed to the power put into the antenna), you get a better idea of how far from a cell tower you can be and still make calls.

    Sure, maybe it does cause cancer; too bad there isn't any good scientific study showing such. If there was, Californians would have a lot bigger problems than warning labels.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.