San Francisco Bigwigs on Board with Cell Phone Radiation Disclosure
San Francisco Bigwigs on Board with Cell Phone Radiation Disclosure
Posted 06/16/2010 at 6:26am
| by Paul Lilly
10
Comments
Print
Much ado has been made about the long-term health effects of frequent cell phone usage, and studies have come to mixed conclusions. Some studies fail to show any kind of link between jamming a cell phone against your noggin for extended periods of time, while others warn that within the next decade or so, you'll be able to identify frequent chatters by the tails they've grown.
Regardless of which side is right, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a law that would require retailers to display exactly how much radiation is emitted by cell phones. Following the vote, this will likely become a law after a 10-day waiting period, in which citizens and politicians have a chance to comment on the bill.
"In addition to protecting the consumers’ right to know, this legislation will encourage telephone manufacturers to redesign their devices to function at lower radiation levels," said Mayor Gavin Newsom, announcing the legislation. "This is similar to Prop 65, which dramatically reduced public exposure to toxic materials because chemical companies removed toxic ingredients from their products in order to avoid product warnings."
Should this go into law, San Francisco cell phone shoppers will be able to see the specific absorption rate (SPR) of any cell phone being sold. This number represents the amount of radiation produced that's absorbed into the body, and retailers who neglect to disclose this info would be hit with a $300 fine.
Image Credit: Eco Warrior
More like this
whitneymr
June 17, 2010 at 11:54am
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.
Joan
June 16, 2010 at 11:16pm
Good post, thanks for sharing your articles.
Vibram FiveFingersmbt shoesmbt shoes saleMBT trainerecco shoes
Metalmorphasis
June 16, 2010 at 8:49pm
IF its bad for the honeybee population, Im sure its not the greatest for us!
Or for youz.. Never owned a cell, never cared.
Scootiep
June 16, 2010 at 1:08pm
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
imagonex
June 16, 2010 at 12:10pm
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.
tri8gman
June 16, 2010 at 12:58pm
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.
imagonex
June 16, 2010 at 8:13pm
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.
austin43
June 16, 2010 at 11:15am
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.
Atomike
June 16, 2010 at 10:30am
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.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Analysts: 9-Inch Kindle Fire This Summer http://t.co/QDYApwCZ1 day 3 hours ago
- maximumpc: Micron: DRAM Prices Likely as Low as They're Going to Get http://t.co/fFUWuFOm1 day 6 hours ago
- maximumpc: Yar, Mateys! All Of Pirate Bay Made Available As A Single 90MB Zip File http://t.co/j5LHlXEZ1 day 8 hours ago
