Actually, I asked who stood to make money as a result of this initiative, not who stood to benefit in a more general sense.
Here is the thing:
Releasing the absorbed radiation info to the public is a good thing: the data can be used by scientists and informed lay people to either do research or base informed opinions. It also neatly covers the cell phone makers collective butts if the radiation is shown to be harmful.
What I object to is labeling the individual products with this data, as I understand the cell phone industry is supposed to do. Currently, there is no data to suggest that the radiation is more harmful than, say, a glass of warm milk (less, actually--milk is pretty fatty, and warm milk is a pretty good breeding ground for bacteria). By labeling these products in the same way we label demonstrably harmful products like cigarettes or alcohol or Twinkies we do no more than add needles regulation infrastructure and belabor the radiation hype.
Information wants to be free, but mis-information wants your wallet.
Really, there seems to be no data supporting even a casual connection between cell phone use and cancer. And while I support the commission of studies to determine if consumer electronics are deadly (Conclusion: Don't drop the 36" TV on your kid), we seem to be beating a dead horse with this particular issue.
It's a 50 year old problem that seems to get worse every day: Mention radiation and people will freak. Put the absorbed radiation data on a cell phone and people will worry and buy the one with less, even if it has no relevance in the issue of health. Bugs me.
I wonder who's making money off of this particular piece of legislation. Trial lawyers? Advocacy groups? The mafia?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice link.
Actually, I asked who stood to make money as a result of this initiative, not who stood to benefit in a more general sense.
Here is the thing:
Releasing the absorbed radiation info to the public is a good thing: the data can be used by scientists and informed lay people to either do research or base informed opinions. It also neatly covers the cell phone makers collective butts if the radiation is shown to be harmful.
What I object to is labeling the individual products with this data, as I understand the cell phone industry is supposed to do. Currently, there is no data to suggest that the radiation is more harmful than, say, a glass of warm milk (less, actually--milk is pretty fatty, and warm milk is a pretty good breeding ground for bacteria). By labeling these products in the same way we label demonstrably harmful products like cigarettes or alcohol or Twinkies we do no more than add needles regulation infrastructure and belabor the radiation hype.
Information wants to be free, but mis-information wants your wallet.
-M
Remember, water is toxic when inhaled.
Really, there seems to be no data supporting even a casual connection between cell phone use and cancer. And while I support the commission of studies to determine if consumer electronics are deadly (Conclusion: Don't drop the 36" TV on your kid), we seem to be beating a dead horse with this particular issue.
It's a 50 year old problem that seems to get worse every day: Mention radiation and people will freak. Put the absorbed radiation data on a cell phone and people will worry and buy the one with less, even if it has no relevance in the issue of health. Bugs me.
I wonder who's making money off of this particular piece of legislation. Trial lawyers? Advocacy groups? The mafia?
-M