San Francisco Passes Cellphone Radiation Law

[zaznet]

The last time I was browsing phones I saw a lot of feature print (megapixels, memory, etc) in smaller than 11 point font. If they are going to require a size it should match other features it's listed with in font face and size. Maybe they can use wingdings 11 point to obscure the SAR rating...

 

[Guest]

One good thing is consumer pressure is finally getting to the industry-- like when they started withdrawing hormone "enhanced" milk from the market (linked to thryoid and metabolic disorders)-- you have to hit these people where it hurts-- in their bank accounts-- either by suing them or by not buying their products.

 

[sirmorluk]

I do not use a cell either. Got rid of it 2 years ago and only keep a prepaid for the glove box and family trips.
FREEEEEEEDOMMM!!!!

 

[Guest]

People need to educate themselves-- not just mindlessly listen to what the media reports. Read medical journals like JAMA or NEJM, look for valid research studies etc- instead of listening to sound bites.

 

[Guest]

I do not know about you but I stopped believing in big powerful corporation. I always ask myself "who's interest they have at heart", their pockets or my health...

If I have a choice between 2 phones, I will choose the one with the lowest SAR.

 

[Guest]

Yeah free yourself from the greedy cell phone carriers lol-- they are not very different from credit card scammers-- its just a more "legit" kind of scamming.

 

[Guest]

Dont get something just because someone else has it-- get it because you actually NEED it.

 

[konjiki7]

I can't think of one person i know that actually uses the phone feature anymore. Texting comes standard with most ppl in society.

If radiation is so bad on phones why aren't people getting finger tumors?

 

[crashtest]

[citation][nom]Parrdacc[/nom]"....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.[/citation]

Consensus indicates confidence in the accuracy of the research. Not a cause to generate certain results from research as you indicate. Consensus in science means that many many people in places all across the world have gotten results that all agree, there are always a few that have bad data but it becomes very obvious who those are when the research is repeated over and over. This gives people confidence in the results, if you choose to ignore data other people will find your "error" when they do research. So you take all these many people that have been doing research they are either mostly cheating, some kind of global cabal of evil scientist, or we are getting valid data on which to base our assumptions. It's through repetition that consensus and confidence in an idea is gained. It's one of the central pillars of science and the system weeds out the cheaters.

Another issue I have with your response, you mention that earth was thought to be the center of the universe. The real power of science is its ability to take new data and revise beleifs. Science self corrects. That is an advantage of science that people often don't understand! It's why science gives us computers, cars, clean water, abundant food, etc instead of still just thinking that the earth is flat. As a result there is no such things as "scientific fact" as you use the term. It simply can't exist in the face of the scientific method, science must always be driven by the data if new data emerges science must change its explanations to mirror reality. Nothing can be proven true in science there is always a chance you will find something tomorrow that will refute it. As this occurs we come closer and closer to reality with every step.

 

[kansur0]

http/www.phonearena.com/htmls/FCC-greets-the-Apple-iPhone-4-heres-an-SAR-comparison-article-a_11766.html

 

[Anaxamenes]

Why is everyone whining about adding a little more info to the price sticker? Seattle required restaurants to add calories for all their menu items and I loved it. Their trade group fought that one too. Stop whining about people getting more information about the products the buy.

According to what I've seen in the science news, the cell phone radiation could be a significant part of the problem regarding the massive decline in honey bees. (Remember them, the little creatures that pollinate your food so you can eat.)

 

[js1882]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]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.[/citation]

What, so you still use a CRT monitor? LCD monitors do not put out radiation

 

[sidran32]

[citation][nom]Parrdacc[/nom]"....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.[/citation]
Except that eventually they realized that the Earth wasn't. When new and better evidence came to light, they changed their view. If this happens today with cell phones, the same thing will happen. Just like today, the best scientific conclusion we have is that cell phone radiation is nothing to be worried about, at the time, the best scientific conclusion was an earth-centric solar system. Today, the best scientific conclusion we have is that the sun is at the center. If you have a better scientific conclusion, then the scientists will pick it up. Until we have those reasons, there is nothing to convince us to think otherwise.

 

[flamethrower205]

What's so bad about SF's response to be a bit more conservative wrt cell phone radiation? Even if there is no conclusive evidence that it causes damage, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it does. To all the people who get pissy about the masses being concerned about the radiation, is there conclusive evidence that the radiation DOES NOT cause problems?
We live in a society in which new technology is always coming out, often much faster than we can really understand it in full. Conclusive evidence for cell phone studies may come out in decades, who knows. But in the interim, why is it so bad to use history as a lesson? Xrays were a fad when they came out, and later people realized that they are in fact harmful. Tons of older high school science books suggest allowing kids to play with mercury...and then people realized this was harmful. The list goes on and on. Our history is full of harmful new technologies and people swearing that it's safe until years later conclusive evidence comes out showing it's not.
From this point of view - and until conclusive evidence comes out - fears are justified. Hopefully cell phones are proven to be ok, but until then, I'm not going to keep mine right next to my balls all day.
Finally, what do you define as "conclusive"? That's a matter of statistical opinion, which always has a margin of error. The fact that there is some evidence, one way or another, is still worth something, just not as much as if it were very confident.

 

[js1882]

[citation][nom]medic 22[/nom]Hurray now I can pick the one with the highest radiation levels because it probably has the best signal. [/citation]


That's not always the case. Sometimes phones have a higher SAR due to poor design, materials used in the phone (ie metal vs plastic) and location of antenna. Take the nokia E51, it had a higher then average SAR then most phones yet it was just as good if not worse reception as some other similar phones (like the E61i).

 

[nebun]

this is so stupid...wait the earth got warmer by another 10 deg F...NOT

 

[nebun]

take a look at all the people in the world which use cell phone, where are all the side effects??? wait here is one, i love using my cell and i don't give a crap it's it's harmful or not

 

[knickle]

I would like to point out that there are BILLIONS of phone subscribers on our planet. The last time I checked we aren't dropping like flies.

For arguments sake lets say that after 50+ years of phone use some tumors start to show up. The question then will be, is it an accumulative affect or are the elderly just more susceptible?

By the time any of this is figured out, you will have probably already died of natural causes. You might as well just enjoy life for now.

 

[rooket]

It's very strange that SF would even address this. But I guess in a city where they allow part of their benefits package for SFPD to pay for sex change operations, you can go figure.

Cel phones are not harmful to use. Everyone has known that for years. Least they could do is hire Myth Busters before doing this. Not that I really care whether or not cel providers make money anyways.... so I degress..

 

[anamaniac]

I'd pick up a phone based on the SAR rating.
Whichever has the highest, I get a horrible signal at work.