AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) – The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation’s first to require the warnings. Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors’ bills.
Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she’s expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones. Under Boland’s bill, manufacturers would have to put labels on phones and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. The warnings would recommend that users, especially children and pregnant women, keep the devices away from their head and body.
The Federal Communications Commission, which maintains that all cell phones sold in the U.S. are safe, has set a standard for the “specific absorption rate” of radiofrequency energy, but it doesn’t require handset makers to divulge radiation levels. The San Francisco proposal would require the display of the absorption rate level next to each phone in print at least as big as the price. Boland’s bill is not specific about absorption rate levels, but would require a permanent, nonremovable advisory of risk in black type, except for the word “warning,” which would be large and in red letters. It would also include a color graphic of a child’s brain next to the warning.
While there’s little agreement about the health hazards, Boland said Maine’s roughly 950,000 cell phone users among its 1.3 million residents “do not know what the risks are.” All told, more than 270 million people subscribed to cellular telephone service last year in the United States, an increase from 110 million in 2000, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association. The industry group contends the devices are safe.
In other news….who knew rats could use a cell phone…huh.
Look closely at the two images.
The top one is a normal rat brain. Normal rats live in the wild and run and eat what they want and do everything rats do for fun.
The bottom one is a rat that’s been caught, caged, tied down for months unable to move, shocked, fed intravenously, dissected while alive to put in probes, and made to listen to Al Gore for countless hours, saying “I don’t give a rat’s ass if CO2 cools when it hits the stratosphere, I have millions invested in this global warming crap, so keep pushing it, I have got to get my investment back”.
According to George Carlin even saliva causes cancer… but not to worry… only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.
#16, Actually, that looks more like the swelling around your anus from your boyfriends after your pool party.
I’m not surprised about law makers taking action without any evidence or knowledge of the problem. The article is pretty funny stating “Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she’s expecting a call.” I’m guessing she also purchased the radiation shield/reception booster that glues to the battery.
But, this is nothing new. We’ve had a rash of laws passed making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving unless using a hands-free set while evidence shows it not an obstruction of vision problem but rather an inability for drivers to operate vehicles safely while distracted.
I say we need more scientists (and less lawyers) in legislative bodies. Only problem is getting these good folks to take one for the team.
I’m ntkingny chnces, ive led sheildd alk my eletronixs. Th led sheld on my monotor ismskinf typinf ans readinf Dvprak Uncesired diffivult ann pron iz ubwarchable.
To initiate a cancer, damage must be done to a DNA molecule. That requires a certain amount of energy. The energy is transferred to the molecule by the absorption of an individual photon. The energy of a photon is equal to its frequency multiplied by Planck’s constant. The frequency of microwave photons is so low that they simply do not contain sufficient energy to alter a molecule. Pretty much all they can do is make it vibrate or rotate. To change the molecular structure requires much more energetic photons.
And that is the reason all the studies are contradictory and equivocal — they’re basically measuring noise. It is physically impossible for a microwave photon to damage a DNA molecule even if you strap the damn thing to your head 24 hours a day.
So the answer is : Bluetooth.
Oh, wait – that means putting a transmitter actually inside your ear instead of just next to it. Oh, well. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt. Even for those ‘droids who walk around with a bluetooth device stuck into their ear canal 16 hours a day.
I own a trac phone and use it on occasion. I suspect the risk is 95% greater for those who walk around with one stuck up against their head all the time. If you could back it off a few inches I suspect the risk would fall a great deal.
well i cant see to many people putting down there phones anytime soon
According to the World Health Organisation, you all can relax…
“Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. Several studies are under way to determine whether the results of some studies on animals have any relevance to cancer in human beings. Recent epidemiological studies have found no convincing evidence of an increased cancer risk or any other disease with mobile phone use.”
#21 You just described conFusion. Again, why show images of his brain here. We already know he’s conFused & senile.
#23 See? He’s now hurt to have his brain for display. You’re mean, McCullough
BTW conFusion, thanks for making my day. That was most hilarious.
#27 Yeap, but bluetooth power is orders of magnitude lower than the phone. You also have the regular handsfree headphones as an alternative, not to mention phones with speakerphone mode.
#30 TC hears a WHO. Sorry, couldn’t resist that season’s bad joke.
“St. Louis, June 25, 2002 — Radiation from cell phones doesn’t appear to cause cancer in rats, according to a study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. The research team exposed rats to the two most common types of cell phone radiation for four hours a day, five days a week for two years.”
http://aladdin.wustl.edu/medadmin/PAnews.nsf/0/96DE7C3FD72F65B386256BDE00745F31
“In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.”
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/23/1707
“A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that “The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out.”
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v93/n7/abs/6602764a.html
And there is more. I call we don’t know for sure and so at least should make people aware that it is possible but not enough data is available.
Cursor_
#9; I know it’s tempting to use our own apocryphal observations to justify belief in strong-sounding news reports. Why, just look at the Bush administration and our perpetual death rate in Iraq, for instance.
But scientific-sounding reports and scientific research are two entirely different things.
You don’t see teens on cellphones 24/7. And none of the ones you see have 100 units glued to their craniums, all active.
The underlying question might be stated as “Do digital low-power communication signals at the power, frequency and wave shape of cell phones cause problems in humans?
Of course, in this blog we may expect the following headlines:
Cell phones named as contributing to Swine Flu deaths.
Rise of Autism linked to pregnant mothers’ use of cell phones.
HIV follows world-wide spread of cell phone install base…
etc.
New rule: Belief in non-science topics not covered under first amendment.
Heh, heh. I just unstrapped my cell phone and noticed that several pictures had unintentionally been taken while I was having sex with my girlfriend. The phone having fried all the neurons in my schwantzenpecker years ago, what I do when the love making starts is set the phone to vibrate and my girl friend gives me a call. Things pick up from there as I don’t pick up.
Turns out, my girlfriends vagina looks just like a rats brain. You’d think god would be just a little bit more creative?
and the whole point of my post #34 was to compliment Pedro at #31 for his WHO reference.
Always good to see great literature referred to in this blog.
Great information. Have you noticed how many articles are headlining that this is so definitive? So great of you to present the real facts that caution and more research is important and necessary.