San Francisco board passes cell phone emission law

[cory777]

Source: AP

SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has approved a new law requiring cell phone retailers to post the amount of radiation emitted by each phone they sell.

The board voted 10-1 Tuesday to approve a first-of-its-kind ordinance that requires stores to disclose the phones' specific absorption rate, or SAR.

The measure is backed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is expected to sign it within 10 days.

Opponents say the city is responding to unfounded concern over cell phone radiation. Whether or not the radiation produced by cell phones causes cancer or other health problems is still a matter of debate among scientists.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_hi_te/us_cell_phone_radiation

[gateley]

1. The scientists who dismiss the idea of harm from the radiation were hired by

the cell phone industry to do the study, right? I think I remember reading that.

Good for SF and good for Newsom!

[TheWraith]

2. No, not right.

There have been no independent studies which support a link between cell phone radio transmissions and cancer. It's misleading to describe it as "radiation."

[jgraz]

3. Radiation is exactly what it is

The fact that people don't know what the word "radiation" means is the problem.

[Unvanguard]

4. Right. It is not incorrect, but it is misleading. n/t

[Recursion]

7. Err... what would you call it if not radiation?

The bigger problem is that people are completely ignorant about "radiation".

Cell phones transmit and receive and microwave frequencies. They have been shown to heat tissues nearby; they have not been shown to cause any harm by doing so.

[gateley]

11. Did they do a study in Europe or something? I seem to remember that some

"report found" that, essentially, cell phones are safe. One of these days I'll go look it up. Or, maybe I just assumed a report was done financed by the industry because I've become so cynical. :7 :hi:

[TheWraith]

12. There's been a lot of studies, actually.

"In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer."

"The 13 nation INTERPHONE project - the largest study of its kind ever undertaken - has now been published and did not find a solid link with mobile phones and brain tumours."

"Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones."

"A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma.""

"The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use."

"In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

[skepticscott]

5. And what will that mean to

the vast majority of the scientifically ignorant public? Will they also be allowed to post how low the wattage is by comparison to a lot of other common devices that emit radiation, and the fact that there is absolutely no plausible mechanism by which radiation of this strength and frequency could produce tissue or chromosomal damage? Or that there is not one credible study showing that cell phones cause cancer? Or that you increase your risk of dying infinitely more by talking or texting while driving?

Sheesh...talk about crappy risk evaluation.

[dipsydoodle]

6. So will they now be banned in bars

like cigarettes ?

[SunnySong]

8. Honestly it would not surprise me if the hysterically scientific illerate demand such. nt

[dipsydoodle]

9. Whats the difference between

cigarette smoke and cumulative radiation ?

[SunnySong]

10. You cannot actually get any signifigant radiation from sitting next to someone on a cell phone.

It is somewhat doubtful that the person using the cellphone is getting any significant radiation either.

Second-hand smoke is a moral and cleanliness issue. Nobody wants to smell like smoke who doesn't smoke. It is the equivalent of littering.