Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Federal Bill Wants Warning Labels For Cell Phone Radiation

By - Source: Dennis Kucinich | B 35 comments

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

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

Display 35 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 21 Hide
    CaedenV , August 13, 2012 7:32 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
  • 18 Hide
    teh_chem , August 13, 2012 7:07 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?
  • 15 Hide
    Anonymous , August 13, 2012 7:07 PM
    So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?
Other Comments
  • 15 Hide
    Anonymous , August 13, 2012 7:07 PM
    So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?
  • 18 Hide
    teh_chem , August 13, 2012 7:07 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?
  • 2 Hide
    hoofhearted , August 13, 2012 7:10 PM
    I wonder about those cell phone tower they are sticking on water towers.
  • 4 Hide
    freedom4556 , August 13, 2012 7:10 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.
  • 0 Hide
    amuffin , August 13, 2012 7:12 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: 
  • 1 Hide
    TheBigTroll , August 13, 2012 7:15 PM
    warning labels arent all that useful but at least they are informing
  • 15 Hide
    JasonAkkerman , August 13, 2012 7:15 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.
  • 21 Hide
    CaedenV , August 13, 2012 7:32 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
  • 1 Hide
    extremepcs , August 13, 2012 7:33 PM
    Kucinich is nuttier than a fruitcake, so I believe this bill will get the attention it deserves...i.e. zero.
  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , August 13, 2012 7:45 PM
    If it freaks a few people out, then I'm all for it.
  • -1 Hide
    Netherscourge , August 13, 2012 8:06 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.
  • -2 Hide
    Netherscourge , August 13, 2012 8:07 PM
    *"they're exposing their brains too"

    self-Grammar Nazi-edit for the win
  • 2 Hide
    eddieroolz , August 13, 2012 8:10 PM
    I think I'd rather see the effort and money spent on real, higher-priority things. Like combating the American debt.
  • 2 Hide
    A Bad Day , August 13, 2012 8:34 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?...
  • 0 Hide
    mcd023 , August 13, 2012 8:49 PM
    in the meantime, we are going on 3 years without a budget...smh
  • 11 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 13, 2012 8:53 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
  • 9 Hide
    JasonAkkerman , August 13, 2012 8:58 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.
  • 0 Hide
    njt , August 13, 2012 9:25 PM
    as usual, they left out "tattooed on the inner eyelids of the buyer", bloody hell
  • -2 Hide
    DSpider , August 13, 2012 9:50 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.
Display more comments