San Francisco Loses Legal Battle Over Warning Public About Cell Phone Radiation

cell phone radiation

Major phone companies appear to be winning the battle to suppress information about possible cancer risks from mobile phone usage, Reuters reports:

San Francisco city leaders, after losing a key round in court against the cell phone industry, have agreed to revoke an ordinance that would have been the first in the United States to require retailers to warn consumers about potentially dangerous radiation levels.

“This is just a terrible blow to public health,” Ellen Marks, an advocate for the measure, said outside the supervisors’ chambers. She said her husband suffers from a brain tumor on the same side of his head to which he most often held his mobile phone.

The 2011 ordinance mandated warnings that cellular phones emit potentially cancer-causing radiation. The statute, which a judge blocked before it took effect, also would have required retailers to post notices stating that World Health Organization cancer experts have deemed mobile phones “possibly carcinogenic.”

, , , , , ,

  • Haystack

    From what I’ve gathered the science on this isn’t exactly conclusive, which is why this article uses the qualifiers “potentially” and “possibly.” If you’re going to require a company to tell customers that a product might give them cancer, it seems like you should at least be able to establish a “strong probability.”

  • Reasor

    Hopefully the Marks household won’t let their ignorance of the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation prevent them from pursuing all available strategies in treating the tumor, including radiation treatment. Maybe a radiologist can clear the matter up for them while they’re at the doctor’s office.

    Here’s a hint: if the frequencies transmitted and received by our phones had any penetrating power, we wouldn’t lose the signal as easily as we all do.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      penetrating power is logarithmicly dissipated. From long ranges the penetration is negligible and harmless, but when the transmitter is right against your head whose to say?

    • BuzzCoastin

      use a cellphone very much?
      your statements imply frequent use
      fyi: ionizing radiation starts as microwaves
      the treatment you glibly proposed
      uses a microwave generator to produce radiation

      Here’s a hint: even with the phone off it can be triangulated in space-time
      the reason the signal drops is because the tower
      is significantly farther from the phone than your thick skull
      it’s using all that energy used to reach the tower
      to reach your very close skull

    • Ittabena

      http://disinfo.com/2011/02/mobile-phones-shown-to-affect-human-brain/

      I did note that those doing the study did say that this didn’t tell them whether it was harmful or not, but it seems they disagree with your statement about penetration.

  • Xaiver Buchs IV

    Caveat emptor.

  • BuzzCoastin

    in 1992 I was making a flight connection in Denver, I was running late
    I had a cellphone, so I called the airline while running to the next flight
    people stared at me, I was running and talking to a disembodied voice
    11 years later, it’s like wee always had cellphones
    and examining their effects isn’t considered necessary
    but is considered crazy
    that’s how technological environments become insidious

21