Wireless phone group sues San Francisco over radiation law

[cory777]

Source: AP

NEW YORK – The wireless industry sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to stop a law that requires cell phone stores to post how much radio energy each model emits.

It's the first law of that kind in the nation. The industry trade group known as CTIA — The Wireless Association said the law will mislead consumers into thinking that one phone might be safer than another on the basis of radiation measurements.

Studies have not conclusively found that cell phone radiation is a health risk. Research continues on brain tumors.

In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the industry group said the city is usurping the authority of the Federal Communications Commission, which sets limits for phone radiation.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_cell_phone_radiation

---

Checkout this Awesome Activist News Site! - http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

[Ian David]

1. Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?
by Bernard Leikind

Microwave radiation from cell phones cannot cause cancer by any mechanism, known or unknown. My answer to the question in the title of this essay is… Fuggedaboudit! No way! When pigs fly! When I’m the Pope! In short, No!

This essay is a companion to my article of the same title that appears in Skeptic magazine Vol. 15, no. 4, out on newsstands and in bookstores this week. Here I present the shortened non-technical version, and describe what all physicists know to be true about what happens when human tissue or any material absorbs microwave radiation. It is this knowledge that leads me to assert with such vehemence that cell phones do not cause cancer. I will also consider two recent, major epidemiological studies from Europe that correctly showed that there was no relationship between cell phones and brain cancers.

<snip>

In the major Danish study, the researchers collected data from the entire populations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. These sensible countries have long provided medical care for all of their fortunate residents. Therefore, the researchers had access to thorough records. Brain cancers are rare, so they must search through large populations to find sufficient cases to draw conclusions. The plan of this study was to compare trends in the incidence of brain cancers from the late 1980s into the mid 1990s when cell phone use was non-existent or rare with the incidence in the first decade of the 21st century when cell phone use was wide spread. They saw no effect. None. Zero. Nada.

<snip>

Physicists have solved the problem of microwave radiation and absorption. We know exactly what happens to the radiation, and there is no fuzzy area about it that we do not understand. The epidemiologists hear instead that physicists do not know of a mechanism by which the radiation might cause cancer.


A chart simplified from the printed version of this article in Skeptic magazine Vol. 15, No. 4. This eSkeptic version says that the brain receives only a tiny amount of energy from a cell phone compared to that generated by normal activity such as working out. The body’s powerful temperature control system deals with this extra energy without breaking into a sweat. The Skeptic magazine article compares the energy required to break the chemical bonds in living cells with the energy level of cell phone photons and other forms of electromagnetic energy. The result is the same. Cell phones cannot damage living tissue or cause cancer. (Click the image to download a PDF version of the diagram.)

More:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-09/#feature

[SpiralHawk]

3. Wow the industry should be paying for your spew

as you join the corporate campaign to keep information from citizens.

What are they hiding?

[boppers]

5. Science: Not for the uneducated.

This is a problem with our educational system, when confronted with science, american citizens react with fear and immediate distrust.

[SpiralHawk]

10. I suppose you are pleased as punch that GMO food is unlabeled as well

"Information, not for the little people" - CorporOrepublicons

Educated people -- all people really -- deserve information. The corporate overlords (R) -- somehow feel that giving people information (about cell phones or genetically modified food) is dangerous.

Bullshit. Keeping information occult is what is dangerous, as any truly educated person will argue...

Tobbacco companies fought for years to keep information about cancer away from people who, in their view, would be too 'uneducated' to understand it. Everyone now knows what absolutely malicious corporate BS that was.

Withholding information on the specious claim that we are too 'uneducated' to understand it smacks of corporate facism (R).

[Ian David]

14. I, for one, am in favor of labeling GMO food. I like to know what I'm eating.

I see what your problem is now.

You distrust everything and believe it is all part one ONE large conspiracy theory to harm you.

The part of your brain that decides what is a valid threat and what is not a valid threat must be broken, so you cower in fear from EVERYTHING.

When what you should REALLY be worried about is the dihydrogen monoxide. http://www.dhmo.org/

[boppers]

28. Educated people know how to find information.

If you are eating soy, for example, you are likely eating GMO.

[Ian David]

13. Just the stupid ones. n/t

[Drale]

29. Yes

Yes that is the big problem when people here radiation they immediately think bad and most dont relize the amount of radiation they revieve from things like the sun (a non man made thing) everyday

[Ian David]

12. No. I just like to educate the willfully ignorant. For the record, I hate my cellphone company.

And they're not "keeping" anything from anyone.

It's called Science.

Anyone can do experiments and test stuff.

[SpiralHawk]

18. You mean you like to keep people Intentionally Uninformed

If there is no problem, there should be no need to hide the data. Right? So then why argue for keeping the data OCCULT? They kept tobacco data OCCULT for years and years --

"Trust us, our 'scientists' have the 'facts' on tobacco and you Little People are 'ignorant' and cannot possibly understand."

- Tobacco Corporations

"Trust us. Our 'scientists' have the 'facts' on cell phones and you Little People are 'ignorant' and cannot possibly understand."

- Cell phone corporations

[Ian David]

19. I never said I have a problem with publishing the information.

It's just that the information is useless.

And obviously you're proof that there are certain people who really cannot possibly understand.

[SpiralHawk]

20. You may be content to worship corporate scientists as your high priests

I reserve the right to examine the information myself, and to exercise my own free will and make my own decisions. It's kind of an American tradition.

It's not just tobacco and cell phone and GMO-mutant food 'scientists' of course. We also have corporate climate 'scientists' telling us that there is no global climate change; that it's all a lib-rul conspiracy.

In these fundamental matters, I -- and many others of good conscience and long experience -- choose to examine the information myself, and to make my own determination.

You have made your point - we all get it that you have faith in the corporate scientists. That's your right, for sure. It's my right -- our right -- to be skeptical.

[Lightning Count]

22. How much radiation does your computer monitor give off?

Or laptop.

[SpiralHawk]

24. Changing the subject are we?

Figures -- when the original BS has lost its power to delude or confuse. Nifty strategery (R).

[boppers]

27. It's the same topic, the evil "radiation" that people are exposed to.

Computer monitors, like cell phones, and broccoli, are radioactive.

[skepticscott]

35. Pot..meet kettle

You're the one who has no facts to challenge the scientific findings that cell phone radiation does not, and cannot cause cancer. So you try to shift the discussion to the separate subject of whether tobacco causes harm, and attempt to imply (again, invalidly and with zero evidence) that any incidence of any scientist covering up any fact that something might prove harmful proves that ANY claim that something is harmful MUST be true if there are scientists arguing against it, because scientists only try to cover up the truth.

:crazy:

[Ian David]

31. It has nothing to do with corporations. It has to do with the laws of physics.

Corporations cannot use cellphone radiation to harm you, even if they wanted to.

But I wouldn't blame them if they tried it in your case.

You're not being skeptical. You're being paranoid and ignorant.

[One_Life_To_Give]

43. Radiation level in Pacific Garbage Patch is not the same in SanFrancisco

Sorry for coming in late.

My objection to reliance solely upon SAR measurements as required in this regulation. Is they only tell us what the absolute maximum RF Emissions is. That would happen out in the ocean well away from cell phone towers. Where the phone will attempt full power transmissions to try and reach a tower. But when you are in a City the a good quality phone will seek to extend battery life by using the minimum RF Emissions necessary to maintain contact with the Cell Tower.

If we are going to give people information lets make it something truly worthy. Lets base the tests on what could be expected at certain locations. e.g. A typical urban location outdoors, inside a typical office building downtown, a suburban community. While deciding what attenuation levels to represent various real world locations will b e controversial for the engineers involved. It has the ability to convey better data to a potential user than something as generic to only worst cases scenario's such as the SAR.

[skepticscott]

2. The law should also require

That the radiation people get from all sorts of other sources be posted as well. ANY source of ultraviolet radiation (such as being outdoors during the day) has an infinitely greater chance of causing cancer than radiation from a cell phone.

[arikara]

39. How do you know that?

Vitamin D deficiency is epidemic since people started avoiding the sun as promoted by the cosmetic companies. Maybe... just maybe all the skin cancers are caused by the chemical sunscreens that people slather all over themselves.

Personally I'll take my chances with the sun rather than to fry my brain by having a stupid cell phone attached to my head. We got along just fine without them until the very recent past and it is not a necessity for anyone, most especially children to be running around yakking on one all the time.

[w4rma]

4. I'd like to know more details about the radiation emmissions of my phone. (nt)

[boppers]

6. Hundreds of phones listed here:

http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phone-radiation-levels/?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx

So, now you have a number that means what, exactly?

[anigbrowl]

8. Then buy or make an rf meter

Cost of parts: less than $1

Next!

[Ian David]

16. WHY IS THE INDUSTRY KEEPING THIS INFORMATION FROM US!?!?!

oh.

never mind.

[w4rma]

21. Good. Then it should be very inexpensive for a cell phone manufacturer to test their phones and put

the wave diagram on the back of the box.

[Lightning Count]

23. See post 21.

Thanks!

[anigbrowl]

26. 'wave diagram'? lol

Why should they, when any number they give will just be repeated by people saying 'OMG (cellphone) puts out (power rating)!!" with no clue what the number even means.

[Ian David]

15. Here

[defendandprotect]

7. Go San Francisco -- !!

[anigbrowl]

9. it's no surprise that you would support this stupidity

Let me guess. You don't live here and you don't pay taxes to support time-wasting activities like this.

What do you consider an acceptable EM radiation output by the way? In numeric terms, that is.

[arikara]

40. If it is not important to you

then don't pay any attention to it. That's all.

[anigbrowl]

41. it is important to me that we not make policy based on poor understanding of science

None of the people supporting this can express evens basic understanding of what the numbers mean, what they consider a safe level or anything else. They're like people who complain about schools teaching evolution.

[zenj8]

11. I definitely want to know

how much radiation my phone is emitting. The amount of radiation is listed on websites, so why not on the phone itself? If people are concerned about the radiation, what is wrong with giving them some peace of mind. Remember also, that the phones haven't been around long enough to catch brain issues that occur over an extensive period of time (longer than the ten year study). I don't care what the industry says (because we know they care soooo much about our health as opposed to the money they make), I want to know how much radiation any device I buy emits. If the industry protests, I defintely want to know!

[Ian David]

17. The industry has nothing to do with the laws of physics which they have no say over.

And the laws of physics say if you don't want to be harmed by your cellphone, then don't text while you drive, and don't swallow your cellphone.

[boppers]

30. Are your vegetables labelled for their radiation emission?

Your furniture? Your toilet paper?

[Ian David]

33. My toilet paper radiation goes up to eleven.

Most toilet paper only goes up to ten.

But then what happens when your toilet paper is on ten, but you want more radiation? You're stuck, right? That's why mine goes up to eleven.

[skepticscott]

36. And do you want to know

how much extra radiation you get when you fly in a plane? Because it's more than you'll ever get from your cell phone. So why do you get worried about the one source, but not the other? Because you're just another in the herd of paranoid, uninformed sheep, who gets scared about whatever you're told to get scared about on the TV news.

[panzerfaust]

38. I want to know how much radiation any device I buy emits.

And you will do exactly what with this information?

Any device with an electrical current moving though a magnetic field (or the converse) will emit radiation.

In addition, all foods you eat, all the clothes you buy, your own body and the very air you breathe is radioactive. Do you really want your tax dollars wasted on determining the radiation level of bananas?

If you are so concerned, buy yourself an RF meter and a Geiger Counter and make the measurements yourself. No reason the rest of society should pay for your phobia.

On the other hand, I do agree with you, that, if the information is already available - thus will not cost tax dollars to determine - and is of interest to a significant proportion of the population (for whatever reason) then why not put it on the product instruction sheet (which is already overloaded with other completely useless information put there by the company lawyers)?

Oh - and don't forget to tape over your electrical outlets like my grandmother used to do, as she believed that if she did not electricity would leak out and cause rheumatism.

Actually, I recall reading about a UK physician in the 19th century who established, to his and his followers satisfaction, that ALL diseases were caused by an electrical imbalance in the body. He sold a machine which could restore your body to a normal electrical state and thus cure anything. I don't seem to have his card here - but you might do some research and see if you can obtain the patent rights to his restorative machine.

[Lightning Count]

42. I have to ask

"Oh - and don't forget to tape over your electrical outlets like my grandmother used to do, as she believed that if she did not electricity would leak out and cause rheumatism"

What led to this belief?

[Xithras]

25. Phones with lower radiation levels drop more calls, have more connection problems, and slower data.

Cell phone "radiation" is actually a measure of the strength of the signal broadcast from the handset itself. When the phone makes an outgoing connection, it has to broadcast a signal. If you want the quality of the connection to be strong and clear, the signal has to have a bit of power. Some people seem to want a "zero radiation" phone, but that ignores the laws of physics...a phone that emits no radiation is called a RADIO (it receives a signal, but sends nothing). If you want to communicate outward, you must have outgoing transmissions. If you want a super low power phone, you'll need to lobby your cell company to install new towers every few hundred yards.

[Ian David]

32. I wonder if anyone's tested the radiation emitted by those bluetooth headsets. n/t

[boppers]

34. *cough*

http://antiradiation.org/bluetooth-radiation-emissions/

Enjoy! :evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

37. I hope the technophobic woo-woos lose.

Shit like this is a waste of time and resources that could be better spend regulating more important shit, like the fucking BANKS.

[snooper2]

44. I think we may have to move the city of San Francisco

To the dungeon :P


I wonder why the city is letting this go forward--- They better stop this it's tracks :rofl:

Wi-Fi, WiMax service launched in San Francisco Bay
Sunrise Wireless offers public Wi-Fi for recreational boaters and WiMax for commercial vessels

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177558/Wi_Fi_WiMax_service_launched_in_San_Francisco_Bay