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!

San Francisco Requires Cell Phone Radiation Warnings

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the apple-trademarks-i-rradiate dept.

Cellphones 258

Lord Ender writes "Poor phone reception may soon be a selling point in San Francisco. A city ordinance was just approved which requires those selling phones to indicate the 'specific absorption rate' (SAR) caused by the radio transmitters in the phones. Cell phone industry groups opposed the law. The FCC already requires phones sold in the US to have SAR levels below 1.6 W/kg, though adverse health effects from such levels of radio exposure have never been conclusively demonstrated."

cancel ×

258 comments

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

Medical Radiation the New Demon (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591430)

Recently it was reported widely that “airport scanners, power lines, cell phones and microwaves” ain't got nothin' on medical scanning radiation [google.com] . Now people are asking for tracking systems [jsonline.com] and calling them a threat [newsinferno.com] .

I'm not really worried about cell phones as much as when I roll into my new dentist's, get 18+ x-rays of my entire mouth for their record. Find out I need two inlays on the lower left. Come back in two weeks and get two more xrays so they know where to drill. Come back in two weeks to get the inlays put in only to have them re x-ray the inlays after they were in to make sure they were in properly since they couldn't floss between them. What. the. hell? Can't you use regular light and your eyeballs to set those in there? I mean, I'm glad you did a good job, I just don't know what to do about this malignant jaw tumor now ...

I think you might need a new dentist (2, Informative)

mbessey (304651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591512)

Seriously - I didn't get anywhere near that many x-rays when I had my root canal/crown operation a couple of years ago.

This is an implant ..... (3, Insightful)

wsanders (114993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591830)

... not just a crown. They drill a screw down into your jaw or skull bone, then mount a tooth on it.

I would *definitely* not want to have problems with that, they could take as many X-rays as they want. At 0.005 millisieverts (see parent's link) that's still 1/20th the amount of a chest Xray.

Now off to brush my teeth compulsively for the next hour.

What's the truth, eldavojohn? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591530)

eldavojohn, are you sopssa? Are you TripMaster Monkey?

I find it very strange how TripMaster Monkey, a subscriber, used to always get the first post, and then he suddenly disappeared, only to be replaced by sopssa, another subscriber, who was always getting the first post. Now we don't see much of sopssa, but we see you getting almost every first post, eldavojohn (yet another subscriber).

I rarely see any other subscribers posting, let alone consistently getting the first post.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591532)

It's true - don't you think it's a little weird that your Doctor will tell you to go pose over there by the wall, while they hide behind a lead curtain?

I mean, I get it. They do X-rays all the time so its better that they don't get exposed to it everytime a patient does. But I begin to wonder if there is a way that doesn't involve X-rays at all, that way we all can rest a little easier.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591970)

I guess they could just cut you open and have a look around instead.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (2, Interesting)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592120)

It'd be cool if they could do something about the resolution of ultrasound. Any ultrasound experts out there...?

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (3, Informative)

sleeping143 (1523137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592272)

Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592356)

Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution. [wikipedia.org]

I seem to remember a company that I was gonna work for (but didn't - long story) using ultrasound for looking for cracks in metal.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592440)

Not an expert, but I do know that ultrasound is only good at solid, soft tissue. Bones and gas-filled areas cause weird echoes and distortion that lower the image's resolution. [wikipedia.org]

While I'm not a Medical Expert, I do seismic work for a living.

Why not just filter out the Shear data, That way only the P-waves are there, This would adjust for the Gas issues. I imagine a wider receiver then could adjust for the sudden velocity variations.

I'd prefer a weird uncomfortable contraption to being zapped with ionizing radiation.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (2, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591558)

    I really hated that story. The news story that is. Your doctor story is sadly accurate.

    In the news story, they mix non-ionizing radiation (like RF) and ionizing radiation (like X-ray), and don't clearly differentiate them. Both can be bad. Ionizing radiation can be worse. They miss the fact that even if every source of man made radiation were to be neutralized, both still exist at background levels. Well, unless you are exposed to daylight, then you're getting a bit of both. :)

 

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591612)

I wonder how the medical imaging radiation an average person receives compares to the daily, hourly, sometime nigh-continuous exposure to the lower levels of radiation from a cell phone.

BTW, your dental x-rays sound excessive.

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon (4, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591684)

I wonder how the medical imaging radiation an average person receives compares to the daily, hourly, sometime nigh-continuous exposure to the lower levels of radiation from a cell phone.

It doesn't. Trying to compare the two would be like trying to compare getting hit with a ping pong ball once a minute all day every day to getting shot with a 9mm pistol once a year. Look up the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation if this isn't making sense to you.

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591802)

How many generations of iPhone before it can produce X-Rays?

Re: Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592054)

Radiation used in medicine is the largest source of man-made radiation to which people in the United States are exposed. Most of our exposure is from diagnostic x-rays. Physicians use x-rays in more than half of all medical diagnoses to determine the extent of disease or physical injury. Radiation is also used in cancer treatments, where precisely targeted radiation destroys diseased cells without killing nearby healthy cells. Radiopharmaceuticals, another medical treatment, are used to locate tumors in a patient's body and to treat cancer. One-third of all successful cancer treatments involve radiation.

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

  • Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
  • Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
  • Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
  • Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
  • Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm [wa.gov]

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

somaTh (1154199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591622)

Out of curiosity, was it the old film x-ray or the newer digital ones? It's my understanding that the newer ones use significantly less power and are "safer" for multiple uses. Even if it was, I agree with you. That kind of usage sounds excessive.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591678)

Out of curiosity, was it the old film x-ray or the newer digital ones? It's my understanding that the newer ones use significantly less power and are "safer" for multiple uses. Even if it was, I agree with you. That kind of usage sounds excessive.

Sorta offtopic so I'm replying anonymously but the new digital ones. They still left the room to hit the button but the machine would xray and then it would come up on the computer screen sitting across from me pretty darn quickly. This one had just opened. Plus they had LCD screens facing each chair and were a little cheaper on inalys (which I needed).

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32592018)

Yeah, they did that for me too. When I asked though, they said that it's a weak precaution. The place was a bit newer and they claimed the walls weren't lead lined which, in retrospect, sounds sounds a bit unsafe, even if they are using lower levels.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (5, Funny)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591742)

What are you complaining about? I went the dentist and then the urologist a few years ago, and then attempted to drive over the Williamsburg bridge. Six ATF guys pulled me over because their radiation detector went off... I don't want to remember the rest of it.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591756)

From the article:

"A chest or abdominal CT scan involves 10 to 20 millisieverts, versus 0.01 to 0.1 for an ordinary chest X-ray, less than 1 for a mammogram, and as little as 0.005 for a dental X-ray. Natural radiation from the sun and soil accounts for about 2 millisieverts a year."

So your 30 x-rays add up to 0.15 mSv--if they were using the latest and greatest instrument and knew how to use it. That is a little more than an ordinary chest x-ray.

But I think that assumes that the person taking the x-ray knows how to position the lead apron properly, and not all mine hygienists have know or done this.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32592182)

"A chest or abdominal CT scan involves 10 to 20 millisieverts, versus 0.01 to 0.1 for an ordinary chest X-ray, less than 1 for a mammogram, and as little as 0.005 for a dental X-ray. Natural radiation from the sun and soil accounts for about 2 millisieverts a year."

Considering that a CT scan is an array of rotated x-rays, it would make sense that a CT scan is about 10-100 times the radiation of a plain film. It's also about 100 times as useful. Chest x-rays are pretty much only good for showing lung issues and clavicle fractures.

But then, I've stood next to a constantly firing fluoroscope, so color me unimpressed.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591862)

First, go to a dentist who can do a panoramic x-ray, if only for speed/comfort.

Second, a dental x-ray is 1-3 mrem. Some studies have shown humans tolerate about 3 rem per year well, so you'll be fine.

Third, I'll take a bit of radiation over exploratory surgery any day. When the Star Trek biobed arrives, that'll be good too.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592012)

A man can handle 100 X-Rays a year, and should have to.

Re:Medical Radiation the New Demon (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592024)

You could just say "no". When my dentist asks why I just say, "Costs too much"

Fun with the Dentist (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32592490)

As soon as you hear the xray machine go on, yell "Owww!"

They love jokes like that!

Umm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591456)

Can you say preemption? A federal judge will throw this law out instantaneously.

Re:Umm? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591626)

As I understand small amounts of law but I'm not a super-law genius, how would preemption apply to this? Isn't this just adding regulations as opposed to overriding federal ones and/or being overrided by federal ones?

Re:Umm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591964)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption [wikipedia.org]

Read the 'Field Preemption' section.

poor reception (4, Insightful)

Trisha-Beth (9231) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591468)

Poor reception means that the phone has to transmit at higher power to reach the cell base station.

Re:poor reception (4, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591594)

    I went to Europe once (years ago), with my Nextel phone. I left it on quite a bit, so I could retrieve phone numbers, and call them from my local cell phone. The Nextel phone usually lasted for days if it was just turned on but I wasn't making calls. I had to charge it every night while I was there, because it was constantly seeking towers that didn't exist. After I got home, everything was back to normal. It could find towers, so it worked at lower power.

Re:poor reception (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591916)

I had to charge it every night while I was there, because it was constantly seeking towers that didn't exist.

Yep. I'm in awe of the power budget engineers who designed my LG nV2. It can regularly run 4-5 days between charges, in an area with only mediocre coverage.

But if I spend the data in a data center (faraday cage), the battery is down to 20% after an 8-hour job. Nice mini-USB car charger to the rescue. And the darn thing charges up in just a couple hours with its tiny battery. Such a good phone (with crappy ear speaker, unfortunately, but a 2.5mm hardline headset is great).

Re:poor reception (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592470)

    Datacenters are always funny for cell phone coverage. One in particular was mostly underground. If you were standing on one side, you were about 20' down. If you walked across the datacenter, it was at street level, but there was a thick steel reinforced concrete wall. If someone managed to make my phone ring, which did happen occasionally, I'd have to ignore it, go upstairs (to ground level) and out through the security checkpoint before I could call them back. :) But I've only had a few phones that you could even attempt to use in a datacenter. The Motorola phones I've had were the best for noise cancelling, so the caller could hear me clearly, but most of what I heard was the noise, until I'd go outside.

    One place wasn't bad. I always had a good signal, but the noise inside was too loud to hear anything. I'd have to say "hold on", while I ran for the door.

    Most of them were as you described. So much metal, I may as well have been in a faraday cage. No signal inside, and full signal as soon as I stepped outside. In a few places that I visited a lot, I left a charger there, so I could leave the phone charging while I was working. I always thought it looked funny having my phone on a managed PDU, but hey, it worked. :)

Re:poor reception (3, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591972)

Similar problem when I go to visit the folks up in rural Wisconsin, the solution I've found is to put the phone into airplane mode (both of my most recent phones have had it so I assume it's becoming standard). That allows you to use the phone as a PDA (pull contact information, view/edit saved data, play games, etc) without it running down your battery in a matter of hours.

Re:poor reception (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591700)

On that note, isn't this ordinance stepping on the toes of the FCC anyway?

Re:poor reception (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591870)

> On that note, isn't this ordinance stepping on the toes of the FCC anyway?

No. It does not impinge upon the design or operation of the phones.

Re:poor reception (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591882)

Not really. States can add to Federal regulations, they just can't take away from them. (I.e., CA's clean air laws are much stricter than the EPA's.)

Re:poor reception (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592370)

I try to remember to switch off my phone when I'm in dead areas as it seems to drain the battery in a few hours, trying to reach the network. I avoid adding to my personal dosage of radiation as far as practicable, Layers of fabric for sun protection and backing away from "harmless" emitters like CRTs and microwave ovens. Hoping to find my death somewhere other than an Oncology center. YMMV.

important psa (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591474)

WARNING: The Sun is radioactive! Avoid using it to make phone calls. -- San Francisco.

Re: important psa (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591648)

WARNING: The Sun is radioactive! Avoid using it to make phone calls.

Or at least avoid holding it against your ear for prolonged periods.

Re: important psa (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592074)

Holding the sun to your ear will not cause cancer. I guarantee it.

Re: important psa (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592102)

Oh, stop it. The grandparent is correct. Beaches should have signs that say "WARNING! Solar radiation!".

Re: important psa (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592472)

Right. I wish there were some organization the produced useful advice [cdc.gov] about how to manage exposure to solar radiation, which comes in various forms, and has various effects, so I could know what I should do to stay healthy when I go to the beach.

Re:important psa (2, Insightful)

Caledfwlch (1434813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591656)

I don't think they have Sun in San Francisco (Fog City)

Re:important psa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591676)

Or they should just encourage more people to use sunscreen and hats in order to avoid skin cancer and probably save millions in hospital bills.

Re:important psa (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591848)

Warning: bullets exit from gun barrel very, very fast. Do not point at face.

Re:important psa (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591872)

To play ridiculous devil's advocate, you know when you are in sunlight and how bright it is. You don't know what your cell phone is spitting out, though since they don't appear to do anything to you, that information is trivial.

As far as warning about the sun, well that would at least be consistent for California. Warnings on everything about how they could cause cancer and birth defects. LAX has to warn you not to jump out on the tarmac and drink the jet fuel, because it can cause cancer. That the city doesn't -currently- warn you about UV causing cancer is a loophole some lawyer is probably thinking about how to exploit right now.

Re:important psa (0, Flamebait)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591984)

To play ridiculous devil's advocate, you know when you are in sunlight and how bright it is.

Therefore, you know the sun emits light and heat, and that's all you can conclude without further analysis.

I honestly believe if you asked a random sample of the population, they'd be agog at the revelation that the Sun emits radiation. (These people would also likely sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide.)

Re:important psa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32592072)

I honestly believe if you asked a random sample of the population they'd be agog at the fact that washing your hands is sanitary procedure.

Re:important psa (3, Funny)

GofG (1288820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592122)

Dihydrogen monoxide? I've heard of that. Isn't it the main ingredient in most harmful pesticide sprays?

My understanding is that it has gotten into most of our lakes and rivers, and even in our drinking water.

Re:important psa (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592158)

"Sun is dangerous. Do not wear this bikini unless trying to attract a mate with your firm stomach and big breasts. Otherwise cover up." - California General Surgeon

Re:important psa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591886)

This raises the interesting question of if the FCC would allow solar powered cell phones.....

San Francisco's law is reasonable (1, Insightful)

wsanders (114993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591946)

You have to realize SF's Board of Supes is way into touchy feeley useless laws, it's easier than fixing their broken water mains, potholes, clogged storm drains, unreliable transit system, intractable homeless problem, and enormous budget deficit.

This law just requires sellers to post SAR levels where they can be easily evaluated. Verizon already posts SARs on the little price cards next to the phone. Whatever, SAR is a completely meaningless figure anyway.

It isn't nearly as nutty as the City of Sebastopol which refused to consider municipal WiFi, citing radiation concerns:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6082680 [go.com]

Re:San Francisco's law is reasonable (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592198)

It sounds like diversion to me. Argue over this silly cellphone law instead of water pipes or clogged roadways. What an incredible waste of resources (money, time).

welcome to slashdot rhyme time! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591484)

act 1 - scene 1

tinky the wenis sucks on a penis

Hey Gavin (4, Informative)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591498)

Please [wikipedia.org] educate [wikipedia.org] yourself [medpagetoday.com] .

Re:Hey Gavin (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591722)

You think he doesn't know? Gavin is a politician. Reality is just a pesky annoyance to his life's great devotion to feeding his own ego. This is the guy that blamed the NRA for a triple murder which then turned out to have been committed by an illegal alien with a long rap sheet who was still in SF thanks to Newsom's sanctuary city policy. He continued to defend the policy after the shooting, saying he hopes to "outrage" people. The man is utter scum who should be spit on by everyone who passes him.

Re:Hey Gavin (4, Interesting)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591860)

You think he doesn't know?

Honestly? Yes. I think he isn't capable of understanding even the simple definitions and explanations in the attached. I've talked to council members on various city councils over the years - there are some astoundingly stupid people in local government that lack knowledge of basic economics, let alone basic science.

Why not prohibit cell phones? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591500)

Seriously, they are a real pest and nobody but a few professional travelers actually needs them. Prohibit them and the world will be a better place. I'm not joking.

OMG! (5, Funny)

another joe (1132353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591502)

What about second hand radiation? Maybe they should only call in their own homes!

Other things that Emit Radiation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591506)

-Fire
-Stove
-Television
-The sky

Re:Other things that Emit Radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32592454)

They're probably also confusing cell phone radiation with teh gay.

A Selling Point?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591536)

Poor cell reception increases the risk of radiation emitted from mobile phones. How in the world this is a "selling point" is beyond me.

Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (2, Interesting)

rubenerd (998797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591540)

I acknowledge we don't know the long term effects of any mobile phone usage because we haven't been using them long enough, but at the same time I feel uneasy. Phone companies would stand to lose so much money and have their industries labeled alongside big tobacco, so I can't help but think they're pouring as much research into studies that "prove" phone radiation is harmless. Even if they couldn't convince people, at least they'd make the water murkier.

I dunno, my opinions on the ethics of big business have hit another all time low, for some reason.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (3, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591618)

There are populations that have been using cell phones for almost 30 years, and before them there were groups that used hand held radios of similar power levels for another few decades. Granted, the levels of use are probably going up, but in many cases the power output is also going down so you're talking about minimum 30 and up to 60 years of use, it shouldn't be too hard to get a group of long term radio and cell phone users together and have them take a health survey. In fact, you probably wouldn't even have to, all you'd really have to do is look at the rate of brain cancers compaired to the rate of cell phone adoption and if there's a strong correlation you can investigate further (here's a hint, there isn't one).

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (1)

rubenerd (998797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591754)

I'm not a doctor, that's why I was asking. As a heavy mobile phone user, here's hoping your hint is correct!

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591818)

Were those used for equivalent prolonged periods of time? Was the transmitter held next to the head, or at a distance giving equivalent exposure to a cell phone transmitter next to the head? If neither is true they're not equivalent situations.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (2, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591962)

shouldn't be too hard to get a group of long term radio and cell phone users together

Be careful about stopping by the local HAM club and doing a health survey. Long-term radio use seems to cause geekery, pudginess, beer cravings, and a tendency to use linux.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591674)

Phone companies would stand to lose so much money and have their industries labeled alongside big tobacco, so I can't help but think they're pouring as much research into studies that "prove" phone radiation is harmless. Even if they couldn't convince people, at least they'd make the water murkier.

Surely you're not suggesting that the pursuit of money would cause someone to put other people at risk.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591702)

I acknowledge we don't know the long term effects of any mobile phone usage because we haven't been using them long enough,

riiight... because no one studied the effects of radiation on humans before phones came along....

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (1)

rubenerd (998797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591730)

riiight... because no one studied the effects of radiation on humans before phones came along....

Yes, and I said mobile phone usage specifically. There are many different types of radiation, and many different ways of administering it.

Re:Phone companies would stand to lose a lot (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592332)

There is too much empirical data to even come up with a correlation, much less causation.
Too many studies from out side the industry continue to find nothing.

There really isn't any evidence to support this. While tobacco lied, you will note the studies and empirical evidence did come out.

Remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591606)

Nonionizing radiation is nonionizing.

Dear Sir (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591736)

Kindly place your head in this non-ionizing microwave oven.
Then revise your argument so that it has credibility.

Re:Dear Sir (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592364)

And if cell phones were several times more powerful than they actually were, the head-in-the-microwave experiment would mean something.

Threatened? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591640)

I never understood why people consider "more information to consumers" a bad thing, and get all threatened by it. The economy is there to make CONSUMERS lives better.

Re:Threatened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591758)

Sure, but requiring the SAR to be printed in fine print on the product label along with the dozens of other numbers is one thing. But generally laws of these sorts require large highly visible warnings that often overstate the dangers, at least until the industry pushes back. They often try to get rid of the notice, or get it to underemphasize any dangers. The result is usually something more moderate.

Re:Threatened? (4, Insightful)

gninnor (792931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591782)

If everything is labeled "warning" including things that have shaky evidence to support it, eventually warnings become less useful and ignored.

That being said, I really do not see what "information" is being provided.

Re:Threatened? (4, Insightful)

dwillden (521345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591914)

And semi-coincidently California now has so many warnings on so much stuff that the warnings do get ignored.

CA should just save time and require everyone and everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) within the magical borders of CA to be labeled as being possibly cancerous.

Re:Threatened? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592016)

And semi-coincidently California now has so many warnings on so much stuff that the warnings do get ignored.

Hey, now, I've stopped using extension cords so I don't get cancer. I may need a knee replacement, though, constantly running around plugging and unplugging stuff. If I don't get killed in a house fire, that is, from exceeding the max insertion ratings on my power outlets.

Re:Threatened? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592212)

I *wish* we had magical borders. We could make them teleport illegal border crossers to Chiapas.

Re:Threatened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591940)

Because you need larger legal departments than actual development departments to wade throught the clusterfuck that are pointless regulations and idiotic laws.

Of course that is probably one of the intended side-effects: politicians with legal backgrounds catering to themselves and further barriers for small businesses to enter any market.

Re:Threatened? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592310)

As soon as you talk specifically about "consumers", I'm not sure "making their lives better" is of any importance...

Driving? (1)

gninnor (792931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591708)

They are at greater risk driving while on the phone of dieing. Perhaps that should be on the warning.

"DO NOT USE WHILE OPERATING HEAVY MACHINERY" or something like that.

Unintended Consequences (1)

rally2xs (1093023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591712)

These morons will get the transmitter power reduced even further, and like the bozos that whine about cell towers in their neigborhoods, will be unable to communicate. Then whoever theye are trying to prevent from bleeding to death by dialing 911 will just go ahead and do so, since the call will not happen.

iPhone (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591746)

The iPhone has written in its manual that, in order to safely use the phone, you should keep it at 1 inch distance from your head. Now, I think that phone manufacturers should be required to change the form-factor of the device so that you can only use it in a safe way.

Re:iPhone (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591794)

Put sharp 1 inch spikes on the phone. They will have the added benefit of preventing pigeons from landing on your phone.

Really? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592416)

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/iphone_user_guide.pdf [apple.com]

Theres nothing in there that says an inch.

iPhone_Product_Info_Guide.pdf

Says for measurement purposes, it was tested at 5/8 inches away from the body.

What about Full body Airport "Security" Scanner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591772)

radiation [googleusercontent.com] ?

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Domodedovo,
Kilgore Trout

Californians piss me off (3, Funny)

JumpDrive (1437895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591786)

Just like a bunch of Californian wussies to get all worried about a little bit of cell phone radiation, when we have FREAKING UFO's flying around everywhere.
Did anybody tell them that when the wind blows East to West that dust from the Trinity site settles in the fog?

Cell phone radiation is harmful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32591908)

...adverse health effects from such levels of radio exposure have never been conclusively demonstrated."

Fox News, Glen Beck, Neocon columnists, Teabaggers, etc.. Something has to account for the mentally deranged popularity of these idiots.

The absence of "heath effects", however,... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32591934)

...has been conclusively demonstrated. Cellphones are known (even to the state of California) not to cause cancer.

Re:The absence of "heath effects", however,... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592056)

No. No test has ever shown any indication they have never caused cancer. Based on the sensitivity, and extremely low power emitted by the phones, it isn't likely ever to be shown to cause cancer.

We also don't know of any form of cancer increasing over the last 20 years that could be linked to cell phones.

It's tough to prove a negative.

Re:The absence of "heath effects", however,... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32592326)

It's tough to prove a negative.

No it's not!!!

Great (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592026)

more ignorant public setting science policies.
Fucking nitwits.

Re:Great (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592178)

Better be careful.

Someone might call you elitists for believing that scientists and other experts might know better than the mouth-breathing, TV-watching, failed-at-critical-thinking random man on the street or basic B-list celebrity.

This could lead to heavier phones: (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592038)

So if they need to keep the SAR number low, but want to maintain reception, they should just make the phones heavier. Simply by keeping the wattage the same, and doubling the weight, you cut the SAR coefficient in half!

Stupidity in action (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592132)

So, San Francisco passed a law that required a sticker on a common product showing a rating of something most people do not understand or even know about, that has not been shown to have any health consequences, and offers no guidance or explanation. And, it is all to placate some paranoid idiots and will result in ignorant hypochondriacs going bonkers.

This isn't FUD. It is blatant fear mongering and deliberate risk miscommunication.

If there is anything i've learned this year... (2, Insightful)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592352)

its better safe than sorry. Take the oil rig disaster. Had *PROPER* precautions been taken, it wouldn't have happened. Same with that brain cancer you are hoping not to get. It might hit your testicles as well - think about where that iPhone that never stops transmitting data is right now.

Count me in with the "nut jobs" who would rather think in FUTURE tense and could be wrong than thinking only in present tense and thinking the outcome is always going to be "on my side."

Ignorance may be bliss, but its no way to live your life. Hey, I just came up with that - I would say that's a pretty good notable quotable, eh?

Shouldn't they have warnings against (2, Insightful)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592468)

Light bulbs and sun light? I mean the photos in both of those have large numbers of photons in the visible range. Those are quite a bit more energetic than microwaves so logically you'd think they'd be more dangerous. (Oh I'm sorry, logic doesn't come into it.)

1.6 W/kg? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32592486)

I weight 81 kg. So my maximum safe absorption absorption is 130 watts. What kind of cell phone can pump out 130 watts of RF? Can somebody send me a new keyboard, I just shot coffee all over mine.
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>