Court blocks S.F. warning on cell phones

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

A federal appeals court blocked San Francisco on Monday from requiring cell phone dealers to tell customers the products may expose them to dangerous levels of radiation, saying the city can't force retailers to pass along messages they dispute.

The ordinance, the first of its kind in the nation, had been scheduled to take effect last October, but has remained on hold during an industry challenge.

It would require retailers to give each cell phone buyer a fact sheet saying the World Health Organization had classified the phones' radio-frequency emissions as a "possible carcinogen."

The sheet also shows human silhouettes absorbing radiation and suggests protective measures, like wearing headsets, making shorter calls and limiting use by children. Stores would have to put similar messages on large wall posters and on stickers attached to display ads.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-blocks-S-F-warning-on-cell-phones-3854826.php

---

For a more level-headed view on cell phones/cancer, see PZ Myers. This San Francisco legislation is as disgraceful as those attempts by Republicans in super-red states to teach creationism in public schools. Glad the law has been restrained.

[DJ13]

1. the city can't force retailers to pass along messages they dispute.

Does that hold for McDonalds with their Happy Meals, or cigarettes and alcohol?

[99th_Monkey]

4. Cigarettes immediately came to my mind

they ARE being forced to put clear warnings on their
packaging. This is a very bizarre ruling imho.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Not bizarre ruling. No need for this warning. Cigarettes are very different.

There is no solid evidence of an effect from cell phone radiation. A few studies that might show an effect are outweighed by many other studies that show no effect.

Cigarettes are the opposite: the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows definite health effects for cancer of multiple kinds, emphysema, stroke, and several other important health hazards.

[99th_Monkey]

7. I would venture a guess

that the studies with findings of "no harm" were somehow directly or
indirectly funded by .... guess who? the cell phone corporate giants.

[caraher]

10. I can't tell you who funded each individual study

But I can tell you that, unlike tobacco, unlike alcohol, unlike multiple forms of pollution, and like the alleged vaccine-autism link, there is no credible biological and physical science basis for expecting any link whatsoever between cell phones and the harms they are alleged to cause. Null results are not suspicious; the surprise would be to find cause for alarm. The whole scare is based mainly on the fact that the long-wavelength light waves cell phones use are a form of "electromagnetic radiation," which is verbally - but not physically - similar to genuinely hazardous "ionizing radiation." The proposed warnings have no scientific merit.

[SoapBox]

2. All I know is...

I hate talking on a cell....I feel like my ear has been microwaved.

...it simply cannot be good for your head.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Not to pick on you, but it is representative that people don't know much (about this).

Your ear feels warm because you had the phone pressed against it so the ear was not cooled by air. Same thing occurs with a land-line telephone hand-set, but to a lesser degree because the handset doesn't generate heat, especially compared to things like iPhones that have high powered computers built in. Cell phones are smaller, so the hand is held closer to the ear and that adds heat (infrared radiation same as a nice fireplace).

Anecdotes like "feel like my ear has been microwaved" do not constitute evidence for "simply cannot be good for your head".

The tell-tale word here is "simply".

For something where there is not an obvious clear unambiguous mechanism like smoke to disease, then you need some very careful science and statistical study to find a disease effect, if there is any at all. With smoke the question was never whether smoke is bad for you because people died of smoke inhalation in fires for millenia. The question was whether tobacco smoke was safe enough. A very little investigation made it clear that it was not safe enough, but of course the history is that the tobacco companies dragged it out with corrupt and illegal tactics and practices, doing everything they could to sabotage the science.

There may be a very low level disease effect from excessive cell phone use. There is not sufficient scientific evidence to establish that at this time, let alone putting warnings on the product.

To some extent, people need to be a little less fearful and just get on with life. There are no guarantees about life. Too much fear about this or that leads to paralysis. There is a risk to staying in bed and a risk to getting out of bed.

I bet that the positive health effects of cell phone use (friendship, better income) are much more powerful than any possible disease effect from the non-ionizing radiation.

It is best to keep a balanced perspective on risks. People are way too fearful of dieing from flying but drive like idiots to and from the airport where the risk of dieing is much greater even if they drive perfectly. I wonder if all the people fearful of a disease effect from their cell phone are perfect at diet, exercise, and maintaining mental agility through life long learning.

[SoapBox]

14. OK! Well...good luck with that.

Friendship and a better income...gee, who knew?!?!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Have to see things from all angles. The health effect of having friends is huge & well documented.nt

[SheilaT]

3. And meanwhile in some places laws are passed requiring

doctors to tell lies to pregnant women, like abortions cause breast cancer, or the fetus feels pain.

[Hugabear]

5. Why do you oppose people having information?

Especially when it concerns something that could potentially cause cancer?

As another poster already pointed out - there are already laws requiring notices for tobacco products, alcohol, and a wide range of other products. I'm sure many people in California are familiar with Prop 65 labels. So why should this be any different?

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Products with evidence backing the claims, give people information, sure, but make sure its....

accurate and backed up by evidence. Should we next put warnings on vaccines saying they may cause autism because one flawed(and fraudulent) study came out claiming a link, that was later refuted?

[SoapBox]

13. Ditto to hugabear

I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

BUT, if these folks are such die hard cell users and are SO freak'n positively absolutely "shoot down the opposition" sure that these radio wave searching/sending/receiving devices are safe, hey, keep on talk'n folks.

Keep that device stuck to your head, 24/7 and talk, talk, talk!

(And to think, this was not restricting anyone from getting a phone and talking their mindless brain off...it was simply a warning...the wild eyed and rabid objection is amazing.)

[Humanist_Activist]

9. If cell phones are such a danger, then microwave ovens should be banned...

and would be impossible to use without exposing yourself to dangerous radiation. After all the magnetron present in them emits hundreds if not thousands of times more radiation than cell phones do.

[William Seger]

12. You are correct; this is horseshit

There is exactly zero credible evidence that cell phones cause cancer, which really comes as no surprise to scientists who actually understand electromagnetic radiation and carcinogens: All known carcinogens cause genetic mutations by damaging DNA, but cellphone microwave photons have about one-millionth the energy required to do that. Known carcinogens include certain chemicals, certain viruses, and radiation with at least the energy of ultraviolet light. No matter how many photons are absorbed, cellphone photons simply do not have the energy required to cause the photoelectric effect, whereby an atom absorbs a photon and emits an electron, which is the only way that photons can break molecular bonds and damage DNA.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now