San Francisco Passes Cellphone Radiation Law

[Guest]

Hurray now I can pick the one with the highest radiation levels because it probably has the best signal.

This is almost as fantastic as Calafornia proposition 65 in it's tin hattery.

If the International Agency for Research on Cancer says there's no evidence at any level that mobile phone, "radiation", causes cancer and the World Health Organisation say their research is inconclusive then that's good enough for me. In fact the IARC study, the largest of it's kind ever, found that people who regularly use mobile phones have a decreased risk of cancer, although this is small and quite clearly an anomally. However in the best traditions of tin hattery I suggest we now all pin multiple mobile phones to our body to reduce our risk of cancer... quick someone pass me the cranberry juice and green tea.

 

[sublifer]

Would you base your phone buying choice partially on SAR?

No, but If I was looking to buy and android phone and the SAR was significantly higher on one then I'd buy the one with the lower. In fact it might be interesting to see if some mfg's consistently push to the limits of legally acceptable while other might strive to engineer their products with as low a SAR as possible. I would definitely think high of a company that made the extra effort to keep it low.

 

[Pei-chen]

Go check out the "stainless steel is dangerous" thread on Amazon's water bottle review thread for a good laugh.

Half the population has below average IQ and some above average person are having a bad day so there is always more moron than smart people on any given day.

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]extremepcs[/nom]I'm sure there are studies that show smoking has no negative side effects either...[/citation]
[citation][nom]eyemaster[/nom]Conclusive evidence for cel phones is the same as it was 30 years ago with cigarettes. In 20 years, we'll wonder wth we were thinking, doubting the health hazzards they pose.[/citation]
Has it occured you two that your computer puts out far more radiation than a cell phone? Yeah, I know, your head isn't next to your computer. Well, what about your monitor? Maybe you should stop using your computer entirely.

 

[sirmorluk]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]Go check out the "stainless steel is dangerous" thread on Amazon's water bottle review thread for a good laugh.Half the population has below average IQ and some above average person are having a bad day so there is always more moron than smart people on any given day.[/citation]
You may not know this but the 2 most common things in the Universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.

 

[knickle]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]I would base my any cell phone for my family uses mostly on its radiation level. With any luck this will force cell phone makers to compete to be the lower radiation phones.[/citation]
Lower radiation will have a direct "negative" impact on your reception. There's no way around this. Buy the one with the lower radiation if you want, but please don't blame your service provider when your dropped call rate goes up.

 

[elrodvoss]

OMG..My phone is going to give me a brain tumor.

Oh wait...I can use this class 2 or class 3 Bluetooth device. So I guess now I just have to worry about giving my hand cancer when I dial or my hip cancer when I wear it on my belt.

Please, the only thing that makes this news worthy is the fact that its THAT stupid.

 

[knickle]

[citation][nom]sublifer[/nom]In fact it might be interesting to see if some mfg's consistently push to the limits of legally acceptable while other might strive to engineer their products with as low a SAR as possible.[/citation]
All they have to do is lower the power to the phone's transmitter and, presto, you will have a lower SAR. Unfortunately you will drop more calls because you're broadcasting a weaker signal. There is no breakthrough that will ever solve this.

More Power = More Radiation = Better Call Quality
Less Power = Less Radiation = Poor Call Quality

Take your pick.

 

[Parrdacc]

"....consensus of scientific belief...."

Consensus of scientific belief is not scientific fact or for that matter even science. There was a consensus of scientific belief that the Earth was the center of the universe going back to Aristotle and Ptolemy. If you asked people back then they would have said of course the Earth is the center of the universe (consensus of scientific belief) but obviously that was wrong.

Seems to me we are going down this route again. If the majority believe it then it must be true. I have a nagging feeling that even those in the scientific community are starting to go down this road instead of actually doing some real research and find out the facts. Instead it seems like some of them are seeking only "facts" the support their hypothesis and ignore the ones that don't. Careful people is all I am saying.

 

[pluripotent]

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. People who don't know what that means should not be making laws about it.

Your desk lamp is emitting TONS of non-ionizing radiation. Maybe it's causing tumors, too!

Bottom line, this is a total scam based on junk science.

 

[hang-the-9]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]People have been using cell-phones at an exponentially increasing rate for over two decades. In all that time, not a single confirmed case of any sort of adverse health effects that can be directly attributable to cell phone use. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people and trillions of hours of cell phone use with no established adverse effects. That is pretty much the most comprehensive safety analysis that we could ever hope to have. I think San Francisco needs to stop taking themselves so serious (the FCC too, for that matter).[/citation]

I really thing this latest generation of kids is the laziest, most ignorant one so far. And they are are all on cell phones 18 hours a day. Good enough science for me.

 

[Dirtman73]

Wow, there sure are a lot of armchair scientists on this thread. Get back to me with your opinions on cell phone radiation when you've gone to school and gotten your degrees.

 

[jsc]

Well, let's see ...

"Consensus of scientific belief" led to the theory of man-made global warming - until the climate "scientists" were caught cooking the books.

And in a somewhat related matter, because it is toxic in large quantities, it is time to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

 

[hixbot]

[citation][nom]Rab1d-BDGR[/nom]Putting warnings on everything, without any convincing evidence is a bad idea. It cheapens the warnings that ARE important. Once there are warnings about both doing and not doing every activity and using every product and eating every foodstuff - how is anyone going to decide which of these warnings actually matter?[/citation]
Read the article again. It's not a warning. It's simply a label that lists the device's SAR.

 

[Guest]

to twodigital:
actually, thats why italians were suing Vatican state because they have increase of leukemia near vaticans powerful longwave radio antenas.
http://www.hard-core-dx.com/swb/1574.pdf
c this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4XfzZXb_C4
and say that phone's radiation is nothing.

 

[hixbot]

There sure are alot of armchair scientists in this comment section. Bottom line, there isn't a consensus about RF in the cell range. Though it is non ionizing, there still aren't any decent long term studies.
As an RF engineer, my experience tells me that there MAY be serious cause for concern with cell phone transceivers near the brain or groin. This legislation merely makes it necessary for companies to post the SAR, which can't be a bad thing to inform consumers of an actual specification of the device.

 

[Guest]

Yea I think its funny how some of these people base conclusions off of inconclusive data-- so they are making assumptions themselves. And then some idiot chimes in about green tea when there are conclusive studies that report that EGCG in Green Tea reduces the risk of cancer. But go ahead, stick your heads in the sand.

 

[Guest]

Yeah I agree-- looks like people love to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive data. Lovely use of the scientific method! Just because the data is inconclusive doesnt mean its "safe." And I love the pseudomedic who threw in a jove about green tea when there are conclusive studies proving the antioxidant benefits of EGCG. Keep your head buried in the sand of big pharma that brought you the likes of Monsanto

 

[CoryInJapan]

I still dont use a cell phone...I know,everyones going to think Im crazy.

 

[Guest]

I dont use one either-- if you dont need it, why use it?

Rather be safe than sorry anyway, with the rate things are going now, from the forged medical studies that led to the disasters that are Vioxx and Avandia to the BP oil spill.... there really is very little you can trust from the so-called "establishment."