Federal Bill Wants Warning Labels For Cell Phone Radiation

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Wolfgang Gruener
Contributor

Wolfgang Gruener is an experienced professional in digital strategy and content, specializing in web strategy, content architecture, user experience, and applying AI in content operations within the insurtech industry. His previous roles include Director, Digital Strategy and Content Experience at American Eagle, Managing Editor at TG Daily, and contributing to publications like Tom's Guide and Tom's Hardware.

  • So this is going to be about as effective as the warning labels on cigarettes then?
    Reply
  • 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?
    Reply
  • hoofhearted
    I wonder about those cell phone tower they are sticking on water towers.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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....... :ouch: Less chance of having kids? :heink:
    Reply
  • TheBigTroll
    warning labels arent all that useful but at least they are informing
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • extremepcs
    Kucinich is nuttier than a fruitcake, so I believe this bill will get the attention it deserves...i.e. zero.
    Reply
  • If it freaks a few people out, then I'm all for it.
    Reply