Cell Phone Group Sues San Francisco Over Radiation Law

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."

Comments

What science is behind this?

[onyxruby]

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"

Re:What science is behind this?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[locallyunscene]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[onyxruby]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[onyxruby]

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'.

Re:What science is behind this?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[DJRumpy]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[onyxruby]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[Hope Thelps]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[Surt]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[CohibaVancouver]

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...

Re:What science is behind this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[ildon]

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.

Re:What science is behind this?

[onyxruby]

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.

Makes sense

[noidentity]

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.

Oh noes! Radiation!

[Guysmiley777]

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

Re:Oh noes! Radiation!

[c6gunner]

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".

I just want to watch the video

[Low Ranked Craig]

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.

Re:I just want to watch the video

[ColaMan]

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.

Why isn't there an App for that?

[aapold]

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...

cellphone laws

[rossdee]

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.

Re:It's non-ionizing and harmless

[stalkedlongtime]

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.

bring it on

[liquidsin]

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

Re:How much *ENERGY* the phone radiate?

[noidentity]

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).

Why the lawsuit?

[TFAFalcon]

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.