backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on Jun 17 at 7:54 PM


Hopefully this guy's brain doesn't melt from the intense cell phone "radiation". San Francisco has just passed a law to help inform the public of its perils.  (Source: Hands on Care)
Stock up on your tin foil hats and don't let the radiation in

San Francisco is known for its green-minded inclinations and diverse community.  Now it is about to become known as the first city that has passed legislation concerning cell phone radio wave "radiation".

The San Francisco board of supervisors, or council, voted 10-1 to approve a measure to force vendors to pay to put stickers on products or put up signs detailing how much radio wave radiation is dished out by various products.  Supervisor Sophie Maxwell notes, "This is about helping people make informed choices."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced he will sign the legislation into law. Newson's spokesman, Tony Winnicker, states, "This is not about discouraging people from using their cell phones.  This is a modest commonsense measure to provide greater transparency and information to consumers."

John Walls, vice-president of public affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), disagrees.  His organization, which represents cell phone makers, is opposed to the measure.  He states, "Rather than inform, the ordinance will potentially mislead consumers with point-of-sale requirements suggesting that some phones are 'safer' than others, based on radio frequency emissions."

The CTIA successfully defeated a similar measure in California's state senate.  That measure was proposed by Senator Mark Leno.

Perhaps the strangest aspect of the law is its rather weak provisions for enforcement.  Those who don't post can be fined up to $300 USD for the violation.  However, posting the information and keeping it up to date could cost well over $300 for large retailers like Best Buy.  Retailers have not yet announced how they will react to the law.

Some researchers and advocates argue that cell phone "radiation" is a danger to the human body.  A handful of high profile doctors have even claimed to be on the verge of publishing major information detailing how cell phones can cause cancer.

Thus far, some studies have suggested a link between cell phone use and fast-growing tumors, while others have suggested that such a link does not appear to exist.

While the cell phone-cancer link is unproven at best, there does appear to be a much clearer possibility of smartphones impacting fertility.  Even a change of a few degrees can throw off sperm counts in males, and with many males keeping hot smartphones in pockets, there may be a risk on this front.  Recent studies have offered early evidence in support of this possibility.

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

If the wackos are going to make any progress.....
By zmatt on 6/17/2010 7:44:49 AM , Rating: 4
It will be in California. Seriously, the elected officials over there are so concerned with making everyone happy that they will bend over backwards to enact legislation concerning a phenomenon that's science is shaky at best and ludicrous at worst.




By xler8r on 6/17/2010 8:00:10 AM , Rating: 5
You mean the state formerly known as California, now known as the PRC (Peoples Republic of California)


By mdogs444 on 6/17/2010 8:50:32 AM , Rating: 5
Yes....except in the real PRC (peoples republic of china), the government is actually trying to increase their GPD, increase manufacturing, and not spend their way into bankruptcy.

In California, they'd rather spend everyone's money on stupid entitlement programs, tax you to death to be "green", and now they wonder what they are going to do with being $20B in the hole and people fleeing their state.


By FITCamaro on 6/17/2010 7:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
6. Enough said.


By marvdmartian on 6/17/2010 10:20:11 AM , Rating: 5
Personally, I think it would be funny as hell if all the cell phone retailers just picked up and left SF. Watch how fast they'd reverse this decision, once all the tax payers have to go south of the city, or across the bay, any time they want a new phone or service on their existing phone.

Never happen, but would be fun to watch the council squirm, wouldn't it?


By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 6/17/2010 12:55:37 PM , Rating: 5
Even better if they picked up ... and went to Arizona :)


By clovell on 6/17/2010 10:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
It's wacky to ask cell phone manufacturers to disclose to the buying public how much radiation their device emits? I mean - considering these things are made in the same region that puts lead in children's toys, I don't think it's a bad idea.

But, then again, I can control my reactionary knee-jerks.


By MozeeToby on 6/17/2010 12:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree! Everything that emits dangerous levels of radiation should have to say so. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there are already laws on the books which say exactly that. Where you're wrong is assuming that cell phones emit dangerous radiation. Safe levels in cell phone frequencies are on the order of 100+ Watts for an adult human being, if any phone was pumping out that much power no one would buy it because the battery would be dead in about 5 minutes.

Radiation is a scary word for people, supplying them with information that is scientifically proven to be worthless that they also don't understand will only cause misunderstanding and confusion. It would be like putting kinetic energy at 50mph on all new cars in big scary letters, it doesn't tell the consumer anything that matters, it's just a number.


California Constitution
By DaveLessnau on 6/17/2010 7:47:19 AM , Rating: 1
Anyone know what the California Constitution has to say about things like this? Obviously, the US Constitution gives the feds authority over INTER-state commerce. I'd assume that the California Constitution similarly gives the authority for INTRA-state commerce to the state. So, why does San Francisco think they even have jurisdiction over things like this?




RE: California Constitution
By mdogs444 on 6/17/2010 8:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
You should know better than to try to understand anything that San Francisco does. They are so out of left field, that trying to look at their local society logically isn't worth the time.

They don't care that illegals have murdered their own citizens, in fact they are releasing violent illegals on their streets instead of deporting them.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-16/opinion/1712...


RE: California Constitution
By clovell on 6/17/2010 10:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
Municipalities have enacted regulations stronger than federal and state laws for decades. Try being an NRA member in a decidedly blue state - several cities have gun laws more stringent than the state their in.

The biggest pain in the ass are the laws regarding transport. I can be driving on the highway and go from legal to illegal transport in a quarter mile, or even California.


RE: California Constitution
By clovell on 6/17/2010 10:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
> , or even California.

was supposed to read as "Just saying the issue isn't unique to San Francisco or even California.

Damned keyboard lag.


but will it fly?
By vapore0n on 6/17/2010 9:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they looked over to the east states where in NYC the fast food vendors need to provide calorie intake, etc.
I'm sure that didn't work out as they had hoped.

If people want it, they will buy it.




Radiation
By yottabit on 6/17/2010 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need to put "radiation" in quotes because it is, in fact, radiation




Name coincidence
By jbartabas on 6/17/2010 12:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell notes [...]


That's an appropriate name for the subject.




picture caption
By manofhorn on 6/17/2010 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
did anyone read the caption to this article? ahahahahahah.

"hopefully this guy's brain wont melt."

dailytech watchin out for us all...




Good idea
By PrinceGaz on 6/17/2010 1:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to be able to see at a glance the maximum ERP of the phone on whichever frequency bands it uses. The higher the power the better as it improves the chance of being able to make a call in weak reception areas. Most of the time (where there is good reception) the phone will only transmit at a fraction of its maximum power so the figure will be fairly meaningless for anyone concerned about health implications.




funny pic
By kylegtheassman on 6/17/2010 1:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
they should have used this picture for the story-
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u116/portable...




Not surprised
By The Raven on 6/17/2010 1:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not surprised that the same idiots that won't read AZ immigration laws are the same ones who don't read their cell phone manuals. It is clearly spelled out in the manual that radiation is a concern.

quote:
Radio Frequency (RF) Energy Understanding How Your Phone Operates Your phone is basically a radio transmitter and receiver. When it’s turned on, it receives and transmits radio frequency (RF) signals. When you use your phone, the system handling your call controls the power level. This power can range from 0.006 watt to 0.2 watt in digital mode. Knowing Radio Frequency Safety The design of your phone complies with updated NCRP standards described below. In 1991–92, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) joined in updating ANSI’s 1982 standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to RF signals. More than 120 scientists, engineers and physicians from universities, government health agencies and industries developed this updated standard after reviewing the available body of research. In 1993, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted this updated standard in a regulation. In August 1996, the FCC adopted hybrid standard consisting of the existing ANSI/IEEE standard and the guidelines published by the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Body-Worn Operation To maintain compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines, if you wear a handset on your body, use a Sprint-supplied or Sprint-approved carrying case, holster or other body-worn accessory. If you do not use a body-worn accessory, ensure the antenna is at least 7/16 inch (1.5 centimeters) from your body when transmitting. Use of non-Sprint-approved accessories may violate FCC RF exposure guidelines. For more information about RF exposure, visit the FCC Web site at www.fcc.gov.


Source: Samsung Exclaim Users Manual [PDF]
http://dickensurl.com/ea59/And_youd_find_your_fath...




Psychic radiation
By kfonda on 6/17/2010 3:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think they should also make the psychics post signs showing the levels of psychic radiation they emit.

And maybe signs for the EV car drivers showing how much smug they emit.

And maybe tattoos for the prostitutes showing which STD's they have.

Did I leave anything out :-)




It's a good start
By ionicbluebird on 6/17/2010 5:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why are most of you so concerned with keeping big buisness satisfied as opposed to legitimately informing the public? Let the people make their own informed descisions as opposed to being told by fat *biased* rich men with one hand in their pocket everything is safe, it's all ok... nothing to see here.

God forbid we slow things down a little bit, step back and take our time making important; *better* informed descisions about the possible impacts things like cell phones and cell phone towers have on our health and well being, not to mention the health and well being of our children (who will no doubt be exposed to exponentialy more radiation in the future).

But then again I'm sure those lead pipes that carried our water throuout Rome were just fine... right?




Why
By FITCamaro on 6/17/2010 7:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
Because no one is stupid enough to.




.
By Shatbot on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
In other words...
By Goty on 6/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other words...
By clovell on 6/17/2010 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
Makes sense to me. Considering the punishment, it sounds like it's more of a campaign to raise public awareness. In fact, I kinda think you're the moron here, who doesn't seem to understand that cell phones are built in Taiwanese & Chinese sweatshops with QC standards that have proven so lax as to cause lead poisoning in children from toys.

No, all this is to a punk like you is another 'reason' to point and laugh at San Francisco. Laugh it up.


RE: In other words...
By MrTeal on 6/17/2010 11:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, I kinda think you're the moron here, who doesn't seem to understand that cell phones are built in Taiwanese & Chinese sweatshops with QC standards that have proven so lax as to cause lead poisoning in children from toys.


Your point would be valid only if, when the Chinese shops send out botched crappy phones, they helpfully label them with the correct over-spec radiation levels.

What would actually happen is the company would simply give a spec for that model of phone, and it would be included in the marketing materials. If Chinese QC goes to crap, people will just have the wrong information.


RE: In other words...
By Goty on 6/17/2010 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 3
Right, because the conditions the workers that make the phone are forced to work in has everything to do with the amount of radiation a cell phone puts out.

As for "raising awareness", sure, it raises the awareness of the fear-mongering masses on a subject about which they have not even the basest level of understanding.

Please read about the "iBurst" tower debacle and then tell me that this legislation was introduced and passed by thinking, intelligent people. (Hint: it wasn't)


RE: In other words...
By 67STANG on 6/17/2010 10:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
I recently spent 2 weeks in SF on business. There's something about that city that's "different" than anywhere else in the world. No, I'm not talking about the people or the ordinances. There's just some sort of aura that the city itself projects that warps your mind. Glad to be back home... That said, it is a very beautiful city.


RE: In other words...
By Goty on 6/17/2010 3:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, absolutely, the city itself is great, it's the people that worry me. I haven't been there in about 10 years, but it was fun while I was there.


RE: In other words...
By deeznuts on 6/17/2010 3:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am a capitalist pig conservative, but love San Francisco. The city itself is great. Food, scenery, outdoor activities (although a little cold and windy for this San Diego native).

Everything else about it is whack.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki