backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by dali71.. on May 12 at 6:10 PM

The city Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a settlement on Tuesday

The city of San Francisco has lost the right to place warnings about cell phone radiation levels in its retail stores.

San Francisco was the first U.S. city to pass an ordinance that required retailers to warn consumers about cell phone radiation before they made the purchase. However, the city lost a court battle with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) -- which is comprised of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Samsung and Apple -- and will now lift the ordinance from city retailers.

The city Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a settlement on Tuesday, where San Francisco agrees to drop the ordinance. In exchange, the CTIA will waive its claims for attorney fees that would have amounted to about $500,000. 

"I am for pushing the envelope on something as important as this, but I think the legal reality is such that if we do not approve this settlement, we're talking about having to pay half a million in legal fees," Supervisor David Campos said. "It's a very tough situation, but the last thing I want is to have the general fund give half a million dollars to lawyers in this case."

The ordinance went into effect in 2011, where retailers had to tell customers that gadgets like cell phones emit potentially cancer-causing radiation. The city even wanted to post that the World Health Organization (WHO) deemed cell phones "possibly carcinogenic," but a judge blocked this part of the ordinance, since WHO said more research was needed to back that claim. 

The CTIA filed a lawsuit against the city, saying that the ordinance violated the industry's First Amendment rights. 

A ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said that San Francisco had to prove that scientists agreed with its claims about cell phone radiation. It also had to prove that the FCC no longer believed they were safe for consumers to use.

San Francisco decided to take a settlement offer in the end with the CTIA. 

Sources: NBC News, SF Gate



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: First amendment rights?
By FaaR on 5/9/2013 12:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's more important to be concerned over the enforced posting of a warning notice which is extremely likely to be 100% bogus. Cancers can only occur as a result of chemical reactions inside cells, induced by things like ionizing radiation, various chemicals, free oxygen radicals and so on. RF waves at these power levels lack the ability to influence chemical reactions in cells, they're far too low-power to do that. All that happens is that the water molecules of the body are (very very slightly) warmed.

There's quite literally zero credible evidence for cell phones causing cancer, and it seems likely that there won't ever be either, because the physics of reality doesn't seem to support it.


RE: First amendment rights?
By MozeeToby on 5/9/2013 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
First, and I can't emphasize this enough, I agree with you. Cell phones don't cause cancer. If they did we'd see the rate of brain cancer soaring over the past 30 years as cell phone use went for approximately 0% of people to approximately 100%. There's just no evidence to back up the claim.

However. While the radiation given off by a cell phone cannot directly cause chemical reactions, it can change the temperature (as you mentioned) which can cause a response in the body. Depending on what that response is, it could, conceivably increase the rate of cancer in those areas. A good example is the fact that if you wear a watch for your whole life you are statistically more likely to get skin cancer where the watch rubs on your wrist. The rubbing causes the body to react in certain ways and it's the body's reaction that increases the cancer risk.


RE: First amendment rights?
By Motoman on 5/9/2013 1:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A good example is the fact that if you wear a watch for your whole life you are statistically more likely to get skin cancer where the watch rubs on your wrist


A quick search on Google provided not a single link to back up that claim. You have a source for that research?


RE: First amendment rights?
By Argon18 on 5/9/2013 3:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you know? Watches cause skin cancer because of the way they touch your skin. Also, socks cause foot cancer, glasses cause face cancer, and underwear causes dick cancer.

The only solution to becoming cancer free, is to be 100% nude all the time. This is a fact, as it's now be posted to the internet.


RE: First amendment rights?
By superflex on 5/9/2013 4:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
Typing stupid shit on a blog forum leads to a greater incidence of finger cancer too.


RE: First amendment rights?
By FaaR on 5/9/2013 8:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that cellphones can cause various cancers - it just won't be because of the RF energy transmitted by their antennas. Plastic and synthetic rubber components in their casings may contain additives, PCBs are likely to be laced with flame retardants and so on, and when you use the device while holding it up to your face the heat emitted by the device will make some of these chemicals leak out of the phone as a gas, and you'll breathe it into your lungs, from where it'll disperse throughout your body via the blood. Cue cancer, ten, twenty, fifty years later.

As for the heating, your body will experience far, far, FAR more heating just by you going for a jog. Does that give you cancer? Well, actually, increased metabolic rate in your cells increases damage to DNA, however the body has mechanisms to cope with that, as otherwise life as we know it could not exist. It can't be ruled out however that possibly those coping mechanisms aren't 100% effective all the time; again, cue cancer. From taking a jog.

Lesson to be learned: LIVING IS DANGEROUS. It will kill you! Solution: stop breathing. ;)


RE: First amendment rights?
By AlphaVirus on 5/10/2013 3:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lesson to be learned: LIVING IS DANGEROUS. It will kill you! Solution: stop breathing. ;)

Lmao I'll gladly give up my votes for this article to let you know this post is good but this last sentence kills it!


RE: First amendment rights?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2013 9:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However. While the radiation given off by a cell phone cannot directly cause chemical reactions, it can change the temperature (as you mentioned) which can cause a response in the body.


That's absurd. Wtf? The entire second paragraph of your post is made up FUD.


RE: First amendment rights?
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 9:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
He is right that metabolism does cause damage to DNA. But our repair rate will keep up with that. But that's like saying water is harmful.

Take a huge dose of radiation can cause irreparable to DNA. Those cells duplicate and go out of control.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














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