San Francisco Bigwigs on Board with Cell Phone Radiation Disclosure

10

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

whitneymr

I'm a Certified Nuclear Medicine Technologist and I've forgotten more radiation biology than any of those guys put together know. There is absolutely no way to measure what these levels really mean or what they might do to any one person.

It's just a bunch of politicians who know nothing about anything setting themselves up as God.  

avatar

Joan

You've done a good job, I like it, thanks a lot. 

 

Designer Handbags Louis Vuitton HandbagsCoach Handbags

avatar

Joan

Good post, thanks for sharing your articles.

 

Vibram FiveFingersmbt shoesmbt shoes saleMBT trainerecco shoes

avatar

Metalmorphasis

IF its bad for the honeybee population, Im sure its not the greatest for us!

Or for youz.. Never owned a cell, never cared.

avatar

Scootiep

Well of COURSE San Fran. would ok this. How the hell else are they going to cover their state's debt?

To start press any key...ohh, where's the "Any" key. - Homer Simpson

avatar

imagonex

They should put radiation warnings (real ones) on all radiation emitting components of whatever source, use, shape or form...not just cel phones! Whether one agrees or not, I think it's a good step to protect or warn the consumer. More information available to the consumer is never a bad thing.

Personally, I don't like cel-phones and I don't like how some people can become so absorbed in these electronic trinkets. It's become the trinket-of-the-day for many teens. I could go on ad-infinitum with other examples. Here's one: the thought of seeing cel-addicts text while they drive makes my blood boil.

In a business context, however, they can be an essential tool.

Even so, with all the pro or con arguments out there, these gadgets have been made to become the you-gotta-have-it-or-else-you-can't-live-without-it-ever through advertising. Some people I meet think they can't live without it. That's insane!!

Again, putting radiation warnings should be mandatory on all radiation emitting gizmos, not just mobiles.

avatar

tri8gman

The addictive quality of social communication (remember the old "SUSIE! GET OFF THE PHONE! I need to make a call!" back in day?) is nothing new. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

Lets make a list of radiation emission sources and emissions:

Light bulbs (emit light and often heat)

Heaters (emit heat primarily)

Microwaves (obviously microwaves as well as EMF)

TVs (light, sound, heat, EMF)

DVD players, DVRs, digital cameras, computers(especially laptops), monitors, keyboards, mice, hard drives.... Do you see where this retarded shit can go?!

I hope you aren't one of those jackasses that doesn't understand that "radiation" is not synomonous with "nuclear" or "radioative."

I hope you also aren't someone who doesn't understand that QUANTITY is important - like people who bitch about the new X-Ray scanners at the airports and their radiation. You are bombarded with things way more cancerous than the RADIO WAVES and EMF a cell phone emits; the important point here is that your body can sustain a certain amount of many substances and energies over time without ill effects.

avatar

imagonex

Do you always go into conniptions like this? Bored? I usually get enraged responses like this from the uneducated laymen. The scholars and academics rarely go off into these long-winded mad retorts.  

Correct, addiction (or part of my comment) has nothing to do with the legislation. It is purely an empirical observation of the electronic culture we live in and you are part of the product of the aforementioned. That, my dear, was called a "digression". Apparently, in your infantile tantrum you epically failed to notice that simple fact. I'm also amazed how keyboard jockeys (such as you) sound so tough behind a keyboard.  

Anyways, yes, tri8gman, we all know the different types of radiation out there. However, we won't stoop to your level of kindergarten vernacular. 

I digress, again, and to, again, prove my point, you're another fine example out there of the lack of control generally seen in this electronic gizmo gadget generation. People lack social skill, etiquette, savoir-faire, courtesy, patience and many other proper human behavioural skills. You going off on your explosive rant just proved it.  

You also failed at comprehending my message. The point is to "label" electronics or products that emit radiation not in the sense to spread F.U.D. (like typical americans do) but to inform the consumer. For example, radiation labels could be specific to the different types of categories. 

This all comes down to better informing the consumer, not spread phobia or as you call it "retarded shit". As another example, you'll probably notice that monitors, keyboards, mice, and many other products do come with warning labels of some kind. These labels either educate or inform the consumer in some way.

Hope this clarifies precisely and more concisely my first comment.    

avatar

austin43

I'm sick and tired of all this cell phone radiation bullshit.  THEY CANT HURT YOU.  The technology used emits non-ionizing radiation.  This is the same argument that standing next to a microwave can give you cancer.  Funny how cigarettes aren't policed as much as phones are in the cancer department.  There is very little regulation as to how much cancer they can pack into a cigarette, yet phones are limited by a meaningless SAR rating.  The sooner this retarded argument dies, the sooner technology can advance.

avatar

Atomike

The irony is, that the building you're in right now - along with your watch, computer monitor, and what you had for lunch are about a billion times more likely to give you cancer than your phone.

Frankly, I wonder if simply breathing the vapors given off by the plastic in your phone is more damaging than the radiation. 

 

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.