San Francisco Abandons Mobile Phone Radiation Labels

judgecorp writes "The city of San Francisco has abandoned a law proposed in 2010 which would have required mobile phones to be labelled with their radiation level. Mobile phone industry body the CTIA fought the bill in court, arguing that there is not enough evidence of harm. The city is not convinced phones are safe — it says its decision to abandon the law is simply based on the legal costs."

Comments

can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't figure out what is good and bad data with this topic. Seems like everything I read is spin.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Anonymous Coward]

The data:

There has not been a larger increase in head cancers over the past thirty years despite a more than billion-fold increase in mobile phone use. This means that if there is an effect, it is too small to worry about.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Joce640k]

Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing. You know that, right?

You also understand what 'radiation' and 'non-ionizing' mean in this context, right?

(ie. "radio waves" and "utterly incapable of damaging a DNA molecule")

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[ericloewe]

Don't forget about Wi-Fi.

We are beyond the point where studies make sense.

I propose a study to figure out how to keep assholes from spreading disinformation about RF radiation.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Greyfox]

Seems easy; measure your cellphone with a geiger counter (Accounting for background radiation) and label it with the number of millisiverts you're shooting into your brain while using it (0). Done. Unless, as XKCD points out, it's a banana phone. I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning. I'd like to see their reaction when it's pointed out that they're getting more radiation from that than their cell phone.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Sloppy]

Radio waves can cause thermal heating in human tissue

There's been some hard (but inconclusive) science to possibly confirm this, too. An experiment was performed where a control subject stayed in the house, and a test subject went outside without a hat, in the daytime. The test subject reported a warm feeling, somehow coming down from above. Each subject's body temperature was measured with a thermometer, but they were the same. I don't know what it all means, but I think there ought to be a label on "outside" until we understand this radiation phenomenon better.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Joce640k]

Another test was done where the subject went out for a "brisk walk". This caused adverse physiological reactions including increased heart rate, increased breathing rate and sweating, especially on an uphill part of the trajectory. We recommend immediate banning of hills in places where people are likely to walk.

In other tests it was also found that holding a piece of plastic to your ear for a period of time caused a localized warming effect.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[h4rr4r]

No one made that claim.

They only claimed it does not cause cancer. Which it does not. A cell phone is far too weak to do any real heating, nor would that heating go deep enough to get anywhere near your brain.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[plover]

Honestly, that's what most annoys me about these sorts of cases(this, GMO labelling, 'organic' labeling, etc.) The evidence for harm or harmlessness is often rather equivocal; but the relevant trade association pressure groups scream like babies at the idea that customers would even be in the position to make an informed decision(foolish or otherwise).

Because it's ludicrous. Consider the same idea applied to a packaged cookie: "our whole wheat cookies contain less than 0.0001% arsenic, less than 1 picogram of lead, fewer than 15 anthrax spores per cookie, no more than 150 million viable microbes, below 72,000,000 mold spores," etc. The world is filled with trace amounts of stuff that humanity has ingested since the dawn of our species. It's only recently that we've even been able to recognize and measure it. And those are scientifically proven harmful ingredients at higher levels. We have standards that limit them.

The only people these numbers serve or placate are homeopaths, a completely self-deluded group of liars, charlatans, and idiots who do not deserve the respect you would afford a dead possum lying on the side of a road.

Here's the deal: if you want to know how much potentially harmful X is in a product, read the label. The information is already there, you just have to do your own research. Concerned about RF? There's an FCC ID printed on the case of your phone. Look up their filing. Read the relevant parts of the requirements they comply with pertaining to maximum allowable transmitted power. Read health studies of double blind experiments. It's all public information. But there is no way you should be spreading your irrational fears on someone else's product labels.

It's science, bitches. You want to believe in made up shit? Go to a fracking church, and close the doors behind you.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[wagnerrp]

This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer. Considering the burden of proof is always on the accuser, the ball is in your court.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not making any claim whatsoever regarding the harmfulness of cellphone radiation. I just point out that saying "non-ionizing" is not sufficient refutation of adverse health effects. Non-ionizing radiation can be harmful. The thermal effect is well known and can clearly damage tissue if the radiation is strong enough. Override the safety features of your microwave oven and you'll quickly find out that non-ionizing radiation can indeed damage DNA molecules. Other effects have not been conclusively proven, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If I say that cellphone radiation is harmful, you're right to ask me for evidence. But if you claim that cellphone radiation is harmless, then I'm equally right to ask you for evidence. There's no shame in saying "I don't know". Don't make claims that you can't substantiate.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[interkin3tic]

I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning.

(Sigh)... Why is it always the hippies who take the blame for any San Francisco craziness? The closest things to hippies in SF are the drug addicts on the streets. They're not in control of politics, they're not even in control of themselves. SF and many californians are more concerned about the environment than a lot of other places, but that's not who is pushing for it.

TFA quotes Ellen Marks as a proponent of the bill. Googling her name and cell phones gets you to an op ed piece, and her bio reads

Ellen Marks is a member of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California; a past president of Women of Temple Sinai and of the Sisterhood of Temple Israel in Stockton, California; co-founder with her son Zack of the California Brain Tumor Association; and lead author of the Cell Phone and Brain Cancer Legislative Briefing Book, which has been translated into eight languages, including Hebrew. She is also director of Government and Public Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust.

http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2885

Not exactly a stereotypical dirty hippie or treehugger.

The article also mentions "powerwatch" as being behind the campaign, which is a group based in the UK to oppose cell phones.

These aren't California hippies, these are conspiracy-theorist idiots. Get it right. This isn't environmentalism, this is stupidity.

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[ShanghaiBill]

This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer.

These two sentences, when written together, make no sense. If many studies have found no harmful effect, than that is evidence that there is no harm. What other evidence do you expect them to provide?

Look, this really isn't hard:
1. There is no theoretical reason why cellphone radiation should be harmful.
2. There is no empirical evidence that they are harmful.
3. There is plenty of empirical evidence that they are not harmful.
4. There is no epidemiological evidence that they are harmful (cellphone owners don't get more brain cancer).

Re:can't get past the hype and bad studies

[nbauman]

Of course, but as pipe smokers know, the repeated application of abnormal heat DOES cause dna damage, as well as mouth cancer.

Since I'm a stickler on evidence, I don't think the damage from pipe smoking is due to the heat. There are lots of chemicals in pipe smoke that can damage cells, by damaging proteins, DNA, or whatever.

I don't think anyone has ever demonstrated that people who drink hot tea suffer DNA damage or mouth cancer.

In Other News

[rmdingler]

Sales of Reynold's Wrap spike in the Bay Area.

Destroys sales without helping

[gnasher719]

Here's what that kind of labelling does:

Case 1: Company A labels their phone, company B doesn't. Customers looking at a phone from A get scared, look at phone from B and buy it because it doesn't come with the scary warning.

Case 2: Customer looks at various phones in a shop in San Francisco. They all have the scary warning, so the customer doesn't buy. Next time he visits Los Angeles, he goes to a phone shop, looks at all the wonderful phones without a scary warning, and buys one that he likes.

In the end, if mobile phones emit radiation that is dangerous for you, the perfect solution is to use the phone less.

Re:Destroys sales without helping

[Joce640k]

Case 1: Company A labels their phone, company B doesn't. Customers looking at a phone from A get scared, look at phone from B and buy it because it doesn't come with the scary warning.

Me? I want one with high radiation. The higher the better. High radiation means better coverage!

Re:Surgeon General

[Goaway]

Actually, it might even have opposite effect - buyers might purchase cell phones that have a greater radiation level, with the assumption that more radiation means greater range.

This would be largely correct, and in fact would be a good choice, as the radiation is harmless.

Re:so consistent

[Joce640k]

Casual, recreational use of a variety of brain-altering drugs: fine.
Anonymous bathhouses where one can - hetero or homo - have sex with a variety of strangers: lifestyle choice.

Cellphones: "We should make sure we warn people about the dangers!"

Nope. I'd like to reassure you that the first two things also have plenty of lunatics trying to ban them.

Why are you people against labeling?

[Sloppy]

Even if it's not harmful, what reason could you have to be against letting me choose whether or not my GMO food was farmed by Jews? All I'm asking, is that GMO food made on farms where Jewish workers are employed be labeled, and that cell phones manufactured in a facility which employs coloreds be labeled. I just think we should have an informed free marketplace. That's good for everybody, and even chinks have shown a preference for an informed free marketplace.

It's not like I'm trying to outlaw those peoples' products or infringe on your right to do business with Jews, colored, towel-heads, or Catholics. If you're ok with doing business with those people, I don't have any problem with that. It's a free country and I hope your daughter brings one of them home with her. All I'm asking for, is a harmless label and the right to choose. Why's everyone acting like I'm some kind of unreasonable asshole?!? I don't get it!

Re:No effects.

[plover]

That's not entirely true. Cell phones do have adverse health effects. They are known to be substantial contributors to distracted driving accidents that cause thousands of deaths and injuries every year, increasing the risks of accident by a level equal to that created by drunk driving.

If we limit the scope of the claim to first degree adverse health effects, then cell phones have much less of an impact on people, limited to the blunt force trauma caused by phones thrown by angry spouses and the like. But you still can't accurately state that there are no known adverse effects of cell phones.

Had you fully qualified your statement with "directly caused by emitted radiation", then you would have been 100% correct.

Re:No effects.

[Joce640k]

The largest study done actually showed a slight correlation of a REDUCED rate of cancer with cell phone usage.

There is no known mechanism for adverse effects.

Is that because the people who can afford cellphones don't usually live in houses with moldy asbestos ceilings?

Thermal- not really a problem

[Geoffrey.landis]

I slightly disagree. Radio waves can cause thermal heating in human tissue (close enough to the emitter, if there's high enough power),

Exactly.

Cell phones don't have enough power to cause significant heating.

It turns out that the body is very well adapted for cooling. The circulatory system is a good heat exchanger; it takes a lot of input to overload. Going outside on a 90 degree (F) day, maybe. Lying in the sun and absorbing a kilowatt per square meter, maybe. A one-watt (average transmit power) cell phone, no.

There is one exception to the fact that the cooling system of the body regulates the temperature, actually, the one place the blood vessels don't reach: the lens of the eye. You can't have blood vessels running through the eyeball, since it has to be transparent! If the scaremongers had been saying that cell phones caused glassblower's cataract, they would have had a mechanism. But that isn't the charge. (And, in any case, the power of a cell phone is just way too low to cause this-- you just don't get much heating from the 0.7 to 1 watt average transmit power of a cell phone to cause any damage. Don't stare into a red-hot furnace, though.)

[...] Although I haven't seen enough specific data on cellphones in this regard, I don't expect the effects to be significant.

You got it. The effect is not significant.