San Francisco lives up to its forward-thinking reputation once again and passes a new law enforcing cellphone shoppers' "right to know."
A Tuesday vote, strongly supported by Mayor Gavin Newsom, will require retailers to post information about 'specific absorption rates' (SAR's), and the requirement that any phone sold in the United States have a rate no higher than 1.6 watts per kilogram. This info must be posted "in at least 11-point type -- next to phones."
SAR's, the amount of radio waves absorbed into the cellphone user's body tissue, is a highly contentious topic.
The Cellular Wireless Association, a trade group, says this legislation will confuse consumers -- and have them thinking "some phones are safer than others," says John Walls, VP, public affairs. "We believe there is an overwhelming consensus of scientific belief that there is no adverse health effect by using wireless devices and this kind of labeling gets away from what the F.C.C.'s standard actually represents."
The Federal Communications Commission regulates the $190 billion wireless industry.
There is not, as yet, conclusive evidence. The results of a cellphone user study in thirteen countries published last month in the International Journal of Epidemiology did find a small increase in a cancer that attacks cells surrounding nerves.
Resistance remains strong, a wider-ranging bill voted down in California in early June, and a bill in Maine to post cigarette-like warnings on cellphones defeated in March.
According to small business lobbyists in San Francisco opposed the legislation resisting any additional government mandates in times of economic hardship.
But mayoral spokesman, Tony Winnicker said, "This is not about discouraging people from using their cell phones. This is a modest and commonsense measure to provide greater transparency and information to consumers."
The posting requirements will begin in February 2011 and violators will face fines up to $300.
San Francisco -- ever forward-thinking and eco-conscious already has mandatory composting and a ban on plastic bags.
"This is not about telling people not to use cellphones," added Winnicker. "Nobody loves his iPhone more than Mayor Newsom." The Mayor has more than 1.3 million Twitter followers and vocally -- or virtually, considers the vote a significant victory.
A word of caution. Social media is now taking on the monoliths of fatty foods, sugary sodas, rash-inducing diapers, sickening generic drugs ... and now possibly cancer causing radiation emissions. What's next? Blogging?
Originally commissioned by: www.brandchannel.com
San Francisco: Mobile phones need warning attached
A San Francisco Regulation Raises the Question: Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?
Cancer More Likely from CT Scans then Cell Phones and Microwaves
Cell Phones Pose Tumor Risk, Report Says
Is it safe for kids to talk on cell phones?
Expert warns of mobile phone cancer pandemic
Americans Over Exposed to Radiation: Is Modern Medicine Making You Sick?
In fact there have been many studies over the years and none that I'm aware of have found a causal link between cell phone use and brain tumors. Some, such as the study cited in this article, found a slightly higher incidence of cancer in some users, however the authors of said studies have all maintained that the numbers were too small to be linked to cell phone habits. At least as far as I'm aware.
Now this isn't too say that more studies, especially among young users, shouldn't be conducted. Rather that based on the current body of evidence it's not clear that posting warning signs on cell phones is warranted at this time.
Anyone interested in reading an overview of the current thoughts on cell phone use and and health from a non-biased source can go to the National Cancer Institute at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
A very important conclusion is hidden in the Table from the Appendix, that was not distributed together with the article, and did not make the object of press releases, although it is part of the Interphone article. Extended cell phone use is linked to a 2-fold increase in one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer. Interestingly, the study found this increased risk after using the cell phone for 26 minutes/day on average. But this usage, defined as "heavy use", cannot be considered heavy use any longer, in today's terms!
While radiofrequency radiation does not *directly* break double strand DNA, it is important to remember that 1). directly causing double strand DNA bonds are not the only way to generate cancer, and 2). radiofrequency radiation was clearly shown to have many effects on biological systems. These are reported in the medical literature.
It took thousands of scientific articles and decades of lies until many organizations and establishments finally admitted that there "may" be a risk from smoking. Prior to that, advertisements were featuring health professionals talking about their favorite brand, children bragging on what their parents smoked, and Santa was smiling with a cigarette pack on a newspaper cover.
The study found a slightly increased risk of one kind of brain cancer in the heaviest cell phone users compared to light users, but it also found a LOWER risk of brain cancer in cell phone users compared to land line users at all levels of use.
Apple's supply chain, without peer rereviewed experiments on mammals of
its external antenna, has become as much the LAPDOG as MMS and SEC.
The blog fails to point to its awesome demise as WATCHDOG,
or ask why that is? Perhaps the author is unfamiliar with the standard
wisdom from the FCC ITSELF regarding the touching of antenna during
TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION. Wake up.....its a massive
breakdown in a COMMISSION, where it is now clearly
just an APPLE puppet.
http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20091218_brescia_phone_tumour.pdf
Wonder what it's going to take for people to pay more attention to this issue.
S. Shayon