Federal Bill Wants Warning Labels For Cell Phone Radiation

For every study that links cell phones to brain cancer, there is another that debunks it. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) believes it is time to revisit this issue, put warning labels on cell phones and encourage research in cell phone radiation levels.

Federal bill H.R. 6358, entitled the Cell Phone Right to Know Act, was introduced to Congress last this week.

"Consumers have a right to know the radiation levels of cell phones and whether they are buying the phone with the lowest – or the highest – level of exposure to cell phone radiation. They also deserve to have up-to-date exposure standards that are put together by health professionals without conflicts of interest," said Kucinich.

The bill suggests that future phones should carry a "readily accessible" label that lists the exposure rating of the device, the maximum allowable exposure level, and the maximum allowable exposure goal." The information should be viewable "upon regular use of the device; at any point of sale in a store in the United States; at any point of sale on a Web site engaging in commerce in the United States; and on the outside packaging and in the instruction manual."

The research program, which is closely tied to the product labeling should be targeted at evaluating "whether exposure to electromagnetic fields from mobile communication devices causes adverse biological effects in humans, including especially vulnerable subpopulations such as children, pregnant women, those with compromised immune systems and hypersensitivity reactions, men and women of reproductive age, and the elderly."

"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."

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
35 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • 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
    21
  • 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?
    18
  • Anonymous
    So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?
    15
  • Other Comments
  • Anonymous
    So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?
    15
  • 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?
    18
  • hoofhearted
    I wonder about those cell phone tower they are sticking on water towers.
    2