Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the reading-this-may-give-you-cancer dept.

Cellphones 314

Cytalk writes "A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim. The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no US states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation’s first to require the warnings."

cancel ×

314 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That whole city needs a warning label (-1, Flamebait)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514178)

It gots teh crazy.

I tease. :)

But, seriously, Gavin's a tool. He should go back to the Love Boat.

the sky is falling! (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514182)


Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.

Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.

They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.

.

Re:the sky is falling! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514276)

Perhaps we need a Maine Representative Andrea Boland causes cancer sticker, for her to attach to the speaker attached to the representative's cellphone? If you ask me, that rep has spent too much time outside in the winter air in Maine.

What's next, Republicans and Democrats demanding "Democrats cause cancer, and Republicans cause cancer," respectively?

Re:the sky is falling! (5, Funny)

citab (1677284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514286)

Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"

That should totally be made into a T-Shirt

Re:the sky is falling! (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514440)

That should totally be made into a T-Shirt

... and sent to every politician.

Re:the sky is falling! (4, Funny)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514458)

Including Ron Paul

Re:the sky is falling! (-1, Redundant)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514536)

Yikes, I think you hit a nerve there!

Re:the sky is falling! (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514354)

I can prove that Cell phones cause cancer because they are always emitting their GPS signals to the government, and they can remotely activate the voice input on your phone to listen to what you are saying. Luckily, I've got a free open source non-patentable method of keeping them out. You take some regular household tinfoil, and you wrap it around your head, so that it nicely rests on the ears. Make sure you get everything North of your eyebrows covered, and all the way around to the strange marking on that back of your neck from that one night you were abducted. (For those not abducted, just cover the entirety of your neck, to be safe).

Next, you need to take your passport and stick it in the Microwave, because the government put an RFID in there, to keep track of what terrorist states you are visiting. While you're in the kitchen, get a water filter, but not Brita, that is clearly alluding to England which is a close friend to the United States Government. Make sure you filter your water twice, and possibly even Distill it to make sure any and all drugs in the water are not present.

You should start a garden in your basement and grow some wheat (not outside! They'll see your crops on Google and poison them!). You can then turn that wheat into your own flour and use your own non-contaminated water to make dough, which you can then turn into a wide variety of foods.

Last but not least, every time you use your computer, make sure to open a text document and type in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" so that the FBI/CIA/Military Industrial Complex knows that you know and won't bother watching you. Follow these simple steps and you too can free yourself from the insanity that oppresses the sheeple into doing the corporations bidding. Maybe one day we'll rise against the new world order together, and take back what is rightfully ours **(I don't know what that is yet, but when I figure it out I'll let you know.)

Re:the sky is falling! (2, Informative)

Eowaennor (527108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514460)

I recall a study done several years ago by MIT students regarding tin foil hats. Apparently certain folds will actually amplify certain frequencies!
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ [mit.edu]

Re:the sky is falling! (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514626)

Totally! Besides, it makes a nifty parabolic dish for their underground thought scanners. Everything is done from underground these days. I thought by now everybody knew the satellites were a ruse. They haven't used them since the Roswell aliens had Kennedy assassinated. Of course the real issue is that they are embedding nano RFID thought scanners right into the tinfoil now. Why do you think they warn you not to microwave tinfoil? Where do you think those sparks come from?

Re:the sky is falling! (1)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514804)

Very nice HMROTF

Re:the sky is falling! (3, Interesting)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514514)

What this legislator is really saying is that he doesn't have anything better to do to justify his presence on the payroll. In these tough economic times useless asses like this should be given the boot, so that the money can go to somebody who can do something that is actually productive and useful. (Not just the cost of his salary, imagine the cost of implementation of this thing.)

Re:the sky is falling! (3, Funny)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514882)

But... he has people skills!

Re:the sky is falling! (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514594)

That would be "her"self in this case.

insanity (4, Insightful)

haruharaharu (443975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514186)

Scientists don't agree, no real studies confirm the notion, and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm'. Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.

Re:insanity (4, Informative)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514258)

no real studies confirm the notion

Not stopping there, there is at least one major study [slashdot.org] that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.

They should keep these sort of 'warning' labels to items that have solid, reproducible evidence of significant increases in risks of cancer -- like cigarettes. If they start slapping them on everything that they (in their position as 'a legislator') think might cause cancer, these sort of warnings will lose all meaning.

Diabolical! (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514448)

You know, now that you mention it, that's not a bad plan if you're a tobacco company. I can't tell you how many times when I try to get friends to stop smoking, they fall back on excuses like, "Well, eventually something is going to kill me..." or "Everything causes cancer..."

Talk about lame rationalization. Still, if they start slapping "This may cause cancer!" labels on stuff that has been proven, in fact, not to cause cancer, it's just more ammunition. If you're a tobacco company, that might be a viable strategy. Get cancer labels on everything so that no one will believe the labels on anything.

Re:Diabolical! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514752)

The two best techniques are not worrying about it and mockery.

Re:insanity (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514622)

Not stopping there, there is at least one major study [slashdot.org] that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.

Your quote reminds me of a very excellent movie that (sort of) brings up this exact same topic. Check out Thank You for Smoking [imdb.com] . It's also a pretty good movie, too.

Re:insanity (1)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514658)

While I agree that there's no causation there: I'm still incredulous that a 15% increase in brain cancer (0.5% per year * 30 years) is concluded by the study as "insignifigant".

I'd love to see the year-by-year breakdown (it's not like there were cellphones in 1974).

I'm not saying that cellphones cause cancer (though my own non-brain cancer was directly under where I carried mine), but I am questioning whether the cited study has any useful information either way.

Re:insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514748)

They'll lose all meaning like the ubiquitous Prop 65 placards [wikipedia.org] around California.

Re:insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514270)

But that's RADIATION! And ATOMS are doing it! I don't need your degree in bullshitology to understand those simple facts, Mr. Scientist.

Re:insanity (1)

Iyonesco (1482555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514450)

This was from a book of ridiculous exam answers in UK exams:

http://i45.tinypic.com/eqp46d.jpg [tinypic.com]

What shocked me was not the answer but the question. It seems the UK government doesn't care about investigation or evidence and simply takes the stance that "the science is decided". If anyone questioned this they would no doubt just employ some "scientists" to manipulate the data and backup their per-conceived assumptions.

No proof? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514194)

If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.

Re:No proof? (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514332)

That's not fair, at least listen to someone smart enough not to stand on the thing when they try to make a call.

Warning message... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514196)

How about, a warning message before and after the call

Just like California (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514200)

All over the place they have signs saying "This facility may or may not contain cancer causing chemicals".

May or May not. I'll tell ya, I HATE checking into a hotel and the first thing I see is one of those.

Re:Just like California (4, Funny)

gregarican (694358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514232)

I recall smoking cheap cigars and reading the warning label on the packaging. It might cause cancer in the state of California. Glad I smoked 'em in Florida. Made me rest a hell of a lot easier, ya know?

Re:Just like California (2, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514244)

For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key. Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air". This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.

Nitrogen Warning (1, Offtopic)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514410)

For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key. Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air". This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.

May be a legitimate concern. LN2 (liquid nitrogen) [wikipedia.org] tanks might leak, causing an asphyxiation hazard.

Same with helium tanks. Break the valve, and you might suffocate an entire room filled with balloon-twisting clowns and the children they were entertaining ....

Re:Nitrogen Warning (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514452)

The problem isn’t the nitrogen, though. It’s the lack of oxygen.

Rapid oxygen displacement (0, Offtopic)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514654)

The problem isn’t the nitrogen, though. It’s the lack of oxygen.

This is true, and I should have stated as much.

Gas tank leakage (nitrogen, helium, etc.) in a confined space can cause rapid oxygen displacement. Lack of oxygen causes suffocation.

Re:Rapid oxygen displacement (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514692)

In any case, “may be nitrogen present in the air” is an absurd warning.

Vague warnings (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514848)

In any case, "may be nitrogen present in the air" is an absurd warning.

Agreed. Vague warnings are absurd or worse. The warning should be more descriptive, e.g. "dangerous volume of nitrogen may be present if gas tanks leak."

Come to think of it ... "may be nitrogen present in the air" is doubly absurd. Nitrogen normally makes up 78% of the Earth's atmosphere by volume. "May be nitrogen" implies the possibility that there may not be nitrogen in the air -- and if there is no nitrogen in the air, what the hell is taking its place, and why?

Re:Nitrogen Warning (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514506)

OR the helium tank may crush a few of them as it is cruising through them, the walls, the cars in the parking lot and the cell phone distracted mega-SUV that just happens to be driving by...

Compressed gas tank as missile (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514702)

OR the helium tank may crush a few of them as it is cruising through them, the walls, the cars in the parking lot and the cell phone distracted mega-SUV that just happens to be driving by...

Indeed. Wikipedia states:

"Since the liquid to gas expansion ratio of [nitrogen] is 1:694, a tremendous amount of force can be generated if liquid nitrogen is rapidly vaporized. In an incident in 2006 at Texas A&M University, the pressure-relief devices of a tank of liquid nitrogen were sealed with brass plugs. As a result, the tank failed catastrophically, and exploded. The force of the explosion was sufficient to propel the tank through the ceiling immediately above it."
Link [wikipedia.org]

Re:Compressed gas tank as missile (0)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514856)

Catastrophic failure (complete rupture) is not comparable to gas/liquid escaping via an aperture. I don’t care to do the calculations, but I doubt that a jet moving at the speed of sound through, say, a 1-inch aperture would have enough force to significantly compare to the weight of the compressed gas inside the cylinder plus the weight of the cylinder itself.

Re:Nitrogen Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514898)

No shit, sherlock. A warning that there "may be nitrogen present in the air" is still useless. Presence of nitrogen in the air is not a maybe, it's guaranteed. Presence of nitrogen in the air, without further qualification or quantification, is not dangerous. If it were, we'd all be dead. If there is an asphyxiation hazard, then say so. In the case of a leak, nitrogen displaces oxygen and thereby causes suffocation.

Re:Just like California (5, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514550)

Ironically, those LN2 tanks DO present a danger that is worth warning about. But the warning isn't that "nitrogen may be present," obviously. The issue is that a leaky LN2 tank in an enclosed space may wind up making nitrogen the ONLY gas present, which is extremely hazardous. You can pass out without feeling anything abnormal in advance, and then quickly suffocate. Nitrogen asphyxiation has been advocated as an execution method for this very reason, in fact. Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago. The second tried to rescue the first without first understanding what went wrong, and then succumbed himself (if I am remembering the story properly).

Re:Just like California (3, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514786)

Note that the burning sensation that we associate with suffocation is actually triggered by excessive CO2 levels.

Hence the acute danger of asphyxiation when a compressed gas (other than CO2) is displacing the atmosphere – you don’t feel anything.

Re:Just like California (0)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514836)

One of the labs at my workplace carries a warning that... [gasp!]... there may be oxygen present.

Re:Just like California (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514926)

They're running safety training about equipment involving compressed gases and don't realize that we are always breathing 80% nitrogen already?!

Re:Just like California (1)

bdcrazy (817679) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514416)

I think the big thing is that 'cancer' is now the boogieman. We're slowly getting rid of all sorts of things that used to kill us. We're living longer and healthier, yet cancer can kill anybody at anytime. So once you start getting rid of everything else, cancer is one of the few left. Sure heart disease is a big deal, but cancer, that is EVIL. My warning is thus: No matter what you do, you're gonna die. As a parting shot for the paranoid, staying in your house is hazardous because your roof COULD COLLAPSE!

Re:Just like California (1)

moichido (1120561) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514432)

FLASH: 2015 California - The legislature has finally enabled legislation to have all infants tattooed with a warning on their wrists that states: "WARNING: Life may or may not be hazardous to your health". Proponents of the bill are ecstatic: "We have protected the children and they will not forget the warning even into adulthood."

Where's the Science? (5, Insightful)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514222)

Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!

Re:Where's the Science? (4, Funny)

gregarican (694358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514252)

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays...

Re:Where's the Science? (1)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514262)

Correction...

being ruled by malicious

Re:Where's the Science? (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514366)

Bah, since when are politicians logical, scientifically minded people? This is not exactly the age of Realpolitik (in its original meaning of practical, realistic, and effective; rather than it's more recent meaning of coercive, heavy handed, and amoral). The choices of our governments are based on religion, ideology, and vote pandering; much more so than they are based on what will actually accomplish our goals.

As an example, it has been shown several times that handing out needles to IV drug users not only reduces disease but also, in the long run, reduces the number of addicts (since the users are meeting with trained counselors on a weekly basic to get their needles). Its even been shown to save money, since these users don't end up in the hospital later unable to pay their bills. Yet, any area that tries to start a program of supplying needles is denigrated and attacked. People say they are 'enabling' the users, when in fact their course of action has been shown effective in reducing drug use.

Re:Where's the Science? (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514430)

All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!

Preferably, of brain cancer.

Re:Where's the Science? (1)

ravenscar (1662985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514444)

The science is being expended on trying to figure out how to affix a massive cancer warning label to the Sun.

Do not forget potato chips (4, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514234)

Fried foodstuffs contain known carcinogens. We should add this informative label to potato chips as well.

Re:Do not forget potato chips (5, Interesting)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514774)

The carcinogen is acrylamide [wikipedia.org] , and thanks to California's Prop 65 [wikipedia.org] , you can find labels on potato chips, and in fast food joints that read: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer."

I always liked the "known to the State of California" part, like Maine isn't aware of carcinogens.

Warnign message (1)

kevvraja (1101661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514238)

I prefer a warning message before and after the call

There should be another warning (4, Funny)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514240)

"Use of this device while travelling on public transit may cause people to hate you"

Re:There should be another warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514816)

"Use of this device while travelling on public transit may cause death or dismemberment"

fixed that for you

how about... (4, Informative)

kellin (28417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514246)

Who gives a flying leap? We're inundated with all sorts of things as we wander around this planet, and I for one think its a bunch of bollocks.

And really --

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16059841 [msn.com]

If 420k danes dont have cancer from cell phone use, then nobody will.

So does everything else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514256)

So does the slightly burnt toast you ate this morning, so does the air you breathe, perhaps the fish you eat or tap water you drink. Lame.

Solution (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514264)

Allow this legislation to pass, and then shoot everyone who supports it.

Win/win!

Will this be covered by the public option? (2, Interesting)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514266)

So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up? If I leave my job, will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage?

On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio? Here's a hint, Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth. If I had to pick which antenna I'd rather have next to my head, it's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.

Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry, is there any actual independent science on this? (There probably, is but I am far too lazy to Google).

Re:Will this be covered by the public option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514572)

I think your insurance rates will be going up regardless my friend.

Re:Will this be covered by the public option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514668)

You seem to be concerned with the frequency of the output, but you should be concerned with power. The bluetooth headset only needs to transmit and receive data data over a small distance, maybe 3 feet. The cell phone needs to transmit and receive data over a much larger distance. That requires significantly more power.

Re:Will this be covered by the public option? (3, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514672)

On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio?

I heard that secret government labs were working on a special new kind of headset that uses on ordinary _wire_ to connect to a telephone.

I can't imagine how they have solved all the problems of carrying complex audio signals through something as simple as a wire, but I still predict that this new, previously unheard of, "wirelessless" technology may catch on in a big way over the next twenty years.

Re:Will this be covered by the public option? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514724)

Bluetooth headsets have orders of magnitude lower radiated power than cellphones. They probably still influence the matter from which your head is composed much less, even if frequency is more conductive for heating (cellphones do that to)

Not that it makes a difference anyway; at least BT headsets are more comfortable.

The first (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514268)

And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads. By next year, you'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm.

You always need to be first! (3, Insightful)

dakohli (1442929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514290)

It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items. It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it? With this stuff, we seem to be living in a culture of fear. So it's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react, so that they can claim to be the first, and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better.

I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.

I am all for safety, but lets get real here. How long have cell phones been around? Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units. If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance. I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.

Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists. The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner. If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology. If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.

There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.

Re:You always need to be first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514630)

Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists.

Hmm...

There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.

That would be the scientists that you've already dismissed.

Re:You always need to be first! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514694)

How can you be "just looking for the truth," while explicitly saying that you "don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists" though? Exactly what "truth" are you looking for, when you're willing to discount evidence, your discounting itself based on no evidence at all? You've managed to broadly paint anyone who might assist you in your search as fatally biased. It seems to me that the only "truth" you're seeking is that everyone but you is an idiot.

What's the point about a cancer warning (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514298)

when no one can afford racketeering heath care industry in
Amerika?

Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore Trout

Re:What's the point about a cancer warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514512)

P.S. I eat babies.

Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore Trout

Living is hazardous to your health (0, Redundant)

Khris (1010709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514300)

Seriously, there isn't anything on this world that will not cause damage when used in excess. We as a society have become so addicted to everything that we've completely lost the meaning of "Moderation".

Re:Living is hazardous to your health (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514394)

The number one cause of death is birth. Let's get a warning label on every person so they know the dangers.

The end (4, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514350)

We all have to go sometime, son. And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.

Its the rollover minutes (1)

argee (1327877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514686)

Its the rollover minutes that cause cancer, the other kind of minutes does not. Like in Sweden.

Re:Its the rollover minutes (2, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514706)

Those older minutes are just as good as the newer ones. Don't give me that look!

Job for UN (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514382)

UN should set up a body to study the issue and reach a consensus. We must save the brains.

What makes cell phones more dangerous? (0)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514392)

So, what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses, computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work, etc?

Of course, I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't clearly some fear mongering asshole (who may not believe what they are saying themselves) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes.

Re:What makes cell phones more dangerous? (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514932)

The cordless phones that have been in use "for years without panic" were limited to .001W transmitter power, compared wtih cell phone transmitters typically in the 1W range. (Newer DSS cordless phones are permitted to use up to 1W.)

Of course, most people probably don't know either of those things. My real point is: please don't ask the crazy people questions to which they can provide a plausible answer. The best question is, "If cell phones cause cancer, why has no scientific study been able to demonstrate such a connection?"

What a joke (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514396)

Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves it. Feel free to let her know how you feel. http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [maine.gov] Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073 Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459 Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459 Fax: (207) 324-1627 State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland (Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office) State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900 State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469

San Francisco (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514404)

It's a lovely place to visit, but I am glad I don't have to pay taxes there.

So what do they want the warnings to say? "Warning, this cell phone may or may not cause cancer?" Didn't they already pass prop 65 to say that damn near everything may or may not cause cancer? Honesty - the last time I went the movies there was a prop 65 warning on the door.

They seriously need to stop crying wolf^wcancer.

Constipation... (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514424)

I hear vibrating cell phones can also cause constipation if they end up in someone's butt. Where is the warning for that??

It's a million to one shot, Doc. A million to one!

Great more according to the state of whatever (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514438)

I can see it now, "According to the State of Maine, this device may cause cancer. " We're all going to die one day. Whether it is by cancer, car accident, or natural causes I don't care.

Idiotic (4, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514470)

Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen. What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign. Legitimately, too, since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic, like gasoline and paint. Now everyone just ignores the signs because they're everywhere.

If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like "On these premises there's something really, really carcinogenic. We're not kidding, either. Don't push your luck."

WARNING: Living may be hazerdous to your health (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514484)

Subject says it all, really.

What a joke (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514532)

Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves.

Feel free to let her know how you feel.

http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [maine.gov] [maine.gov]

Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073

Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459

Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459

Fax: (207) 324-1627

State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov

Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland
(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)

State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900

State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469

Probably not a bad idea (1, Interesting)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514540)

There probably ought to be a warning. The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.

I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I'm very aware of how little power they radiate. It just didn't seem possible that it could affect cells, since it couldn't even change their temperature measurably. But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.

NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? (4, Insightful)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514678)

"There probably ought to be a warning"

No there shouldn't and the California debacle you've ignored the discussion of in this thread proves why.

"The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer."

CITE THEM.

RIGHT NOW. Unless you do so, you will be added to the rolls of those who try to make shit up and presume no on will call themon it.

You've bee called, defend your already debunked assertions or admit you can't.

"I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. "

They are.

"But the sheer number of studies that are coming out "

THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.

You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.

Re:NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? (2, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514794)

"The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that I am the Queen of England."

Re:NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? (1)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514814)

THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.

You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.


Try going here. Next, type the words, "mobile phone" (without the quotes) into the box and click where it says "search". Among the 2200 results are a number of studies on the influence of mobile phones on cells and EEG rhythms.

Whether you agree or disagree with their results is another issue entirely.
Have a nice day.

Re:NO, guy, try reading, it's bad idea, citations? (1)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514842)

Messed up the link. Sorry. Go here [nih.gov]

No, cite your assertions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514914)

No, cite your claims, stop that intellectually dishonest crap.

YOU made assertions, provide facts that support them.

A link to NIH is nothing, stop trying that crap.

NO NO NO NO NO (1)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514852)

Try going here. Next, type the words, "mobile phone" (without the quotes) into the box and click where it says "search". Among the 2200 results are a number of studies on the influence of mobile phones on cells and EEG rhythms.

No sir, YOU made the assertions, now you're trying to avoid supporting them because you know you can't.

Show us these "sheernumbers" of studies, and stop assuming I haven't already done exactly the search you're talking about.

I want youto support your assertions. YOU MADE THEM after all, so pointing at a search engine and running away is a real cop put.

Does nobody read Æsop's Fables anymore? (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514614)

Please stop crying wolf and making warnings meaningless!

Why not, works for global warming? (0, Troll)

alta (1263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514650)

Anyone here he says this is a stupid idea, and that global warming is CAUSED by man is a hypocrite.

Of course global warming is effected by man. And every other damn thing on the planet, both in positive and negative ways. To the point that chaos theory says that every time a butterfly farts the world warms a little. But it works the other way to.

And, considering that plants LIKE CO2 and the world is overall GREENER than it was 50 year ago, who's to say warming wouldn't be a good thing? Oh yeah, people who stand to get rich selling carbon credits (gore) and idiots who built their homes .3ft above sea level.

So, think about it, what's the REAL reason someone's trying to push a cell phone label? Is there a huge LABEL MAKING industry in Maine? Is there a company there trying to come out with a EM FREE cell phone? Or is this guy about to start selling EM credits to offset your cell phone?

Water can kill you (1)

Billkamm (322282) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514704)

If you drink too much water too quickly it can kill you. I think all bottled water needs warning labels.

Re:Water can kill you (1)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514872)

you know the ironic thing is this have been documented and proven to be true.

This goes to show you never trust a bunch of cowards(Frenchies) to lead by example they completely mislead everyone. Water is what we should try to protect our children from not cell phones.

Forgot basic science? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514722)

Microwaves heat things by depositing kinetic RF energy into the molecules of your food. Microwave is higher wavelength than visible light (i.e. lower energy per photon). Cell phones use microwave bandwidth. Anyone who gets an MRI might feel a slight warming sensation due to RF energy deposited, but this is known without dispute to NOT cause cancer. You can get multiple MRIs without any radiation exposure, because RF energy is lower energy per photon than visible light.

UV, x-rays and gamma rays deposit more energy per photon (they are shorter wavelength than visible light) and instead of just depositing energy elastically into the molecules of your cells, they can physically break molecules that bond your DNA. That is what leads to cancer from radiation exposure.

Cell phones don't do that.

-Medical Physicist / Biomedical engineer

fuck A 8are (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514726)

Own lube, beveraQ6e, wasn't on Steve's

Please Mr. Government Man, Protect us!!!! (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514792)

More warnings for everything, It won't be a truly safe place to live until everything in existence has yellow warning labels....

Warning, walking may lead to falling.

Warning, eating may lead to obesity.

Warning, living may lead to death.

Warning, thinking happy thoughts now may lead to bad thoughts later.

Warning, life is dangerous, not worth living, please report to you government sponsored "permanent relaxation center" for treatment....

there is so much RF going through your body anyway (1)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30514868)

if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago. what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones? that you hold them to your head? anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?

Consensus is irrelevant (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30514884)

WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 13 Nov 09 Washington, DC

BRAIN CANCER: OF COURSE CELL PHONES ARE DANGEROUS!
Cell phones may lead to neural atrophy as mindless chatter is substituted
for coherent information, but they don't cause brain cancer. This week,
however, a doctoral thesis at a university in Sweden suggested that cell
phones are linked to some brain cancers. It went around the world in
Science Daily on Wednesday. This imaginary link is "discovered" about every
five years or so. Photons induce cancer by the photoelectric effect,
breaking chemical bonds and creating mutant strands of DNA. In 2001, I was
invited to write an editorial on cell phone hazards for the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute (JNCI, Vol. 93, Feb 7, 2001, p. 166). I pointed
out that the photoelectric effect would require photon energies at the
extreme blue end of the visible spectrum, which is why it's the ultraviolet
rays in sunlight that cause skin cancer. Microwave photons are about
10,000 times less energetic. In a classic 2001 op-ed, LBL physicist Robert
Cahn observed that Albert Einstein discovered in 1905 that microwaves
couldn't cause cancer. The cell phone scare was launched in 1993 on the
Larry King Live Show, which is not peer reviewed. It almost strangled the
infant cell-phone industry in its crib, but researchers found nothing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>