The Cell Phone Radiation Law Out Of San Francisco Goes Wrong
It’s actually a good thing that the city of San Francisco is getting sued by the CTIA over their inane law which would publicize the levels of cell phone radiation in the stores. The reason you might be wondering? This is actually one of those situations where giving too much information is actually a bad thing.
The trade group for the wireless industry, the CTIA, argues that the law out of San Francisco is one that’s not constitutional due to the fact that it steps on the toes of the FCC and their ability to make the decision on what and what isn’t safe. I’m unfortunately not a legal scholar so I can’t render a guess as to how this is going to shake out in the end but I can state that a consumer, one that’s in favor of the disclosure of information, I’m actually hoping that the CTIA wins this one.
California has a problem with too much information already when it comes to the disclosure of things that could kill you. I’ve come to realize this the more time that I spend in Los Angeles.
You can walk into an apartment and can’t miss the big sign that’s in the lobby announcing that the residence is full of chemicals which are known carcinogens. Same goes with the seemingly inoffensive household products. When I went shopping for a new pot and pan set I found out that the non-stick materials are likely to be my undoing.
The large majority of the California cancer hysteria comes from a law from 1986, Proposition 65. Prop 65 mandated that anything that contains known cancer carcinogens chemicals have a warning label. This comes to the cell phone radiation law out of San Francisco. It actually does nothing to give information to the casual consumer. Most of the warnings that come out of California have become nothing but noise and personally I’ve learned to tune them out. Should I head for the hills out of the apartment complex? Should I return my non-stick pots and pans? Personally, I say definitely not.
The cell phone radiation labels could actually suffer that same fate in San Francisco. The radiation levels aren’t like the calorie counts that are displayed in the restaurants where people already know in general what’s actually excessive. Side Note: California has a law for that one too. Without providing context no consumer is actually going to have any idea what to do with the radiation information they’ll be given.
So let’s put some context to it. Cell phone radiation is already regulated by the FCC. This ensures that no phones have an SAR over 1.6 watts per kilogram. The SAR is the Specific Absorption Ratio. Other consideration factors are:
• How a person holds the phone
• If the phones has a case
• How much time a person spends on the phone
When it comes down to it and all is said and done there’s still absolutely zero information that the radiation that comes from cell phones causes cancer. There’s definitely no information that a somewhat lower SAR could be a life or death difference maker.
So unless San Francisco is actually prepared to put all of the information alongside every single cell phone and its radiation level the city is doing their shoppers a major disservice.
Related posts:
- San Francisco Sued By the CTIA over Cell Phone Radiation Law
- Cell Phone Radiation Law Approved In San Francisco
- Cell Phone Radiation – What You Need to Know
- Apple Rejects Application That Would Gauge iPhone Radiation Levels
- Anti Radiation Cell Phone, Television and Computer Chips Released For Mass Distribution
- Advocates of Cell Phone Safety Call On the FDA and FCC to Update both Rules and Radiation Standards
- What Is The CTIA?
- A Proposed Law Would Require Warning Labels for Cell Phones
- The First Long-Term Cell Phone Health Study Launched By Europeans, Where Is The USA Study?
- Our Brains React to Our Cell Phones
Tags: cell phone safety, CTIA, Sar