Federal Bill Wants Warning Labels For Cell Phone Radiation

[Guest]

The discussions whether cell phone radiation has negative impacts on people's health is about as old as the cell phone itself.

Federal Bill Wants Warning Labels For Cell Phone Radiation : Read more

 

[Guest]

So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?

 

[teh_chem]

"It took decades for scientists to be able to say for sure that smoking caused cancer," Kucinich said. During those decades, the false impression created by industry supporters was that there was no connection between smoking and cancer, a deception which cost many lives. While we wait for scientists to sort out the health effects of cell phone radiation, we must allow consumers to have enough information to choose a phone with less radiation."

The difference being that studies weren't conducted for decades on a link between smoking and cancer. Extensive studies have been done on cell phone RF and impacts on biological tissue, and there has been no incontrovertible evidence showing that it has any effect--much less at the relatively low levels output by cell phones. Lawmakers want the SAR to be reported for cell phones, but that SAR has no physiological correlation to cellular or molecular damage. What's worse is a high SAR value doesn't mean a high risk of damage. Our skin will absorb alpha radiation, so by extent of the "absorbance rating" like the SAR, it will be quite high. But alpha radiation cannot penetrate our skin, so it has zero biological impact.

Conduct the proper studies before you start using an arbitrary number to report the RF given off by a cell phone. What about all of the non-consumer RF sources--do you have to know about that too?

 

[hoofhearted]

I wonder about those cell phone tower they are sticking on water towers.

 

[freedom4556]

...
Really? This is about as dumb as that grade school that uninstalled its wifi to "protect the children". Hippie nonsense. What does cellphone radiation do to you pray tell? Even before they knew smoking caused cancer people were dying of cancer. Besides, news flash, getting old causes cancer. Nobody's making it out of here alive you know.

 

[amuffin]

Just bought an HTC One-X from AT&T yesterday, it runs on 4G LTE.

That's a lot of radiation, and if you keep it in your pocket....... Less chance of having kids?

 

[TheBigTroll]

warning labels arent all that useful but at least they are informing

 

[JasonAkkerman]

I really wish they would stop calling it radiation. Yes I know what it is, but if you just called it radio waves people wouldn't get so freaked out about it.

It's non-ionizing, it doesn't cause cancer... period.

 

[CaedenV]

I propose we put warning labels on Congressmen:

"Warning: May cause the downfall of civilization as we know it. Guaranteed to cause headaches, eye-bleeding, and (if trying to follow their lines of reasoning) brain hemorrhage. Also causes irritation of the buttocks."

Seriously: http://xkcd.com/925/
all that needs to be said

 

[extremepcs]

Kucinich is nuttier than a fruitcake, so I believe this bill will get the attention it deserves...i.e. zero.

 

[Guest]

If it freaks a few people out, then I'm all for it.

 

[Netherscourge]

I'm all for research into this.

Considering how many people walk around with phones literally stuck to their heads, it might be good to know how much radiation their exposing their brains to.

 

[Netherscourge]

*"they're exposing their brains too"

self-Grammar Nazi-edit for the win

 

[eddieroolz]

I think I'd rather see the effort and money spent on real, higher-priority things. Like combating the American debt.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I think I'd rather see the effort and money spent on real, higher-priority things. Like combating the American debt.[/citation]

"Research money should be spent on other stuff. Asbestos has absolutely no history of any human harm."

-1970's


How you know if something will harm you, if you never find out?...

 

[mcd023]

in the meantime, we are going on 3 years without a budget...smh

 

[back_by_demand]

Yeah, warning message will probably be like this

WARNING! If you hold this telephone next to your head and use it continuously from a full charge till it runs out, within clear line of sight of a cell tower, every day for the next 10 years - you will still be 100 times more likely to be killed by a meteorite than get cancer

 

[JasonAkkerman]

Ionizing radiation, the kind that can damage your DNA at the molecular level, doesn't start until the energy level of the radio waves is over 10eV.

That is so far outside the capabilities of the frequencies used in all mobile devices (not to mention that the devices themselves don't carry enough energy) that is ludicrous to even consider it.

The absolute worst thing a mobile phone is going to do is impart an extremely small amount of dielectric heating.

It does not cause cancer... period.

 

[njt]

as usual, they left out "tattooed on the inner eyelids of the buyer", bloody hell

 

[DSpider]

[citation][nom]JasonAkkerman[/nom]It does not cause cancer... period.[/citation]
I dare you to use an older model, from only a few years ago. Something without a colour screen. You'll immediately feel the effect. It feels like heat but more deeper, beyond the ear level. After 15 minutes or so of talk, your ear drum starts itching as hell and starts to twitch and crackle. My high school desk partner used to tell me that his left leg hurt because he was carrying the fricken thing in his left pocket. And only when he took it with him; if he left his mobile phone at home this never happened. He wasn't pulling my leg either, because I used to see him limp during breaks for last 3 years of high school (but not at home). He wasn't faking it.

 

[DSpider]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]...
Seriously: http://xkcd.com/925/

all that needs to be said[/citation]
I bet that graph lumps together all the other types of cancer too. Else it wouldn't be as funny.

 

[pjmelect]

Radiation from cell phones does NOT cause cancer period. The rate of brain cancer has remained static over the past twenty years where as cell phone use has increased many times. If you want to look over a longer period of time then the rate of cancer in radio hams who are subjected to many times the radiation than from cell phone use is no higher than the rest of the population.
It is time to put this one to bed forever.

 

[pjmelect]

...
Seriously: http://xkcd.com/925/

all that needs to be said


I bet that graph lumps together all the other types of cancer too. Else it wouldn't be as funny.

No the data in the graph is for brain cancer. The reason for the graph to increase rapidly up to the 1980's is because of better detection, not because overall levels increased.

 

[anti-painkilla]

We should spend the money in research into the cause of 'Phantom Txts' and the effect it has on society.

This causes daily if not hourly heartbreak, the thought that one of your friends cares enough to send you a message only to be shattered by the emptiness of default screen.

Srsly, think of the children.

 

[dalauder]

So does Congress want to put warning labels about the non-ionizing radiation coming from TVs, radios, wireless routers, walkie talkies, microwaves, and countless other less-obvious sources? Because there's absolutely no reason to single out one device.

If that is the case, then shouldn't Congress just be complaining to the FDA/CDC about changing allowable safe frequencies for radiation since apparently the well-informed scientists sitting in Congress know more than the scientists the FDA & CDC have?