Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Federal Bill Wants Warning Labels For Cell Phone Radiation

Last response: in News comments
Share
Anonymous
August 13, 2012 7:07:00 PM

So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?
Score
15
August 13, 2012 7:07:00 PM

"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?
Score
18
August 13, 2012 7:10:05 PM

I wonder about those cell phone tower they are sticking on water towers.
Score
2
August 13, 2012 7:10:23 PM

...
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.
Score
4
August 13, 2012 7:12:21 PM

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....... :ouch:  Less chance of having kids? :heink: 
Score
0
August 13, 2012 7:15:21 PM

warning labels arent all that useful but at least they are informing
Score
1
August 13, 2012 7:15:32 PM

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.
Score
15
August 13, 2012 7:32:27 PM

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
Score
21
August 13, 2012 7:33:50 PM

Kucinich is nuttier than a fruitcake, so I believe this bill will get the attention it deserves...i.e. zero.
Score
1
Anonymous
August 13, 2012 7:45:15 PM

If it freaks a few people out, then I'm all for it.
Score
-4
August 13, 2012 8:06:52 PM

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.
Score
-1
August 13, 2012 8:07:55 PM

*"they're exposing their brains too"

self-Grammar Nazi-edit for the win
Score
-2
August 13, 2012 8:10:22 PM

I think I'd rather see the effort and money spent on real, higher-priority things. Like combating the American debt.
Score
2
August 13, 2012 8:34:42 PM

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


"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?...
Score
2
August 13, 2012 8:49:23 PM

in the meantime, we are going on 3 years without a budget...smh
Score
0
August 13, 2012 8:53:50 PM

Yeah, warning message will probably be like this
Quote:
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
Score
11
August 13, 2012 8:58:53 PM

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.
Score
9
August 13, 2012 9:25:09 PM

as usual, they left out "tattooed on the inner eyelids of the buyer", bloody hell
Score
0
August 13, 2012 9:30:27 PM

JasonAkkermanIt does not cause cancer... period.

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.
Score
-10
August 13, 2012 9:50:19 PM

CaedenV...
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.
Score
-2
August 13, 2012 10:36:29 PM

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.
Score
5
August 13, 2012 10:39:18 PM

Quote:
...
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.
Score
1
August 13, 2012 11:06:34 PM

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.
Score
2
August 14, 2012 12:26:52 AM

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?
Score
4
August 14, 2012 1:02:33 AM

DSpiderI 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.

I have been using cell phones for about 15 years now, many different makes and models and NEVER felt anything like that and have never seen anyone complain about things like that.
Score
3
August 14, 2012 2:48:14 AM

Non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer, but too much of any radiation still cause cancer that includes every radiation even visible light...Cell phones might not do that much damage, but if you live near those cell phone tower, then hm...
Score
-5
August 14, 2012 4:26:59 AM

No one seem to be able to prove its dangerous and no one can seem to prove its safe, yet nearly anyone uses it. The tobacco cancer "lab battles" between the neutral scientists and those scientists/pr who got paid by the corporations to prove/give the impression that smoking was safe continued for decades and we all know where that ended. Will be interesting to see where this leads to in the end!
Score
0
August 14, 2012 7:29:48 AM

I would rather have the actual NUMBERS indicating the amount of radiation instead of a stupid label that informs me of what I've already known since I started using cell phones.
Score
0
August 14, 2012 7:31:59 AM

JasonAkkermanI 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.


....hmm, maybe that part should be on the label.
Score
0
August 14, 2012 7:45:10 AM

Ah, the stigma of the word "radiation". Yes, let's throw that word around some more to scare people. "Warning: the light your eyes are using to read this message is RADIATION. Reading warning labels can therefore cause eye cancer!"
Score
3
August 14, 2012 10:35:52 AM

this is just dumb , CRT TV's put out 100's times more radiation than a freaking cell phone does , and people have used them for 60+ years and no one ever stuck a radiation warning label on them. I'm sure what ever ammount of radiation that is leaked from a cell phone is so miniscule that every day background radiation is probably more harmful.
Score
1
August 14, 2012 10:50:01 AM

JasonAkkermanI 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.


actualy to be totally techncal , since my father was an electrical engineer who often worked on nuclear based physics (he passed away in 2002). radio waves can become harmful to humans in a radioactive way , at extremely high high frequencies , but we are talking in a range far above and beyound what any cpu or chip will ever be able to exceed.

thing is is all radiation affects cells of what ever the pass through difference is is that different types of waves have greater affect at lower frequencies. radio waves , take astronically fast frequencies to be harmful to organic substances (ie humans) this is because radiowaves are reflected by the simpliest materials at lower frequencies. Xrays strongest aftertradio , can be blocked by lead get enough of them hitting you though and you can cook. Micro waves the next strongest on the scale are only reflected by metals also , therefore they can screw up organics because they pass through organics at really low frequencies. then you got the god aweful gama rays , they tend to pass through every thing metals included even in feet thick widths. fact is radio waves can be harmful , if projected at a person in high enough frequencies. whats dumb about this is NO man made device can project radio waves at taht high of a frequency and it's likely no man made device every will.
Score
1
August 14, 2012 5:46:19 PM

I love how once again another idiot politician (usually on the left, sometimes on the right) wants another regulation as though IT'S COMPLETELY FREE.

If this passes everyone can blame this idiot and everyone who voted for the bill for the cost of their cellphone going up a good amount. And if not paid for by the industry (ie consumer) then everyone can thank the people pushing this bill for a higher debt.

This is all besides the fact that there's already been studies done and the warning label is NOT NEEDED.
Score
0
August 14, 2012 7:20:07 PM

I will peel the label off my phone and mail it to Kucinich.
Score
1
August 15, 2012 3:42:26 PM

This is absurd, especially when the mobile devices today put out at max 1W of power in the form of Radio Frequencies. Bag phones 2W of power. Where the Tower can put out 20W - 160W of power. Putting a label on the phone or having you shut them off on a plane is just absurd when the Tower is radiating in all directions with more power. And it is Radio Frequencies, not Microwave Frequencies.
Score
0
!