SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Of relevance to the ongoing debate on the health impacts of cell phones. First published on July 10, 2019
A landmark Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Berkeley's cell phone right to know ordinance rejecting industries argument that the ordinance violates the first amendment. The Berkeley ordinance requires retailers to inform consumers that cell phones emit radiation and that "if you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation." In upholding this decision, the panel concluded that the public health issues at hand were "substantial" and that the "text of the Berkeley notice was literally true," and "uncontroversial."
Further, the panel determined that the Berkeley ordinance did not constitute preemption.
"Far from conflicting with federal law and policy, the Berkeley ordinance complemented and enforced it."
The panel held that Berkeley's required disclosure simply alerted consumers to the safety disclosures that the Federal Communications Commission required, and directed consumers to federally compelled instructions in their user manuals providing specific information about how to avoid excessive exposure.
Industry is expected to appeal for a full court en banc review, but this reviewing "panel concluded that CTIA had little likelihood of success based on conflict preemption."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by esperto123 on Friday November 29 2019, @01:22AM (22 children)
If the non-ionizing radiation from cellphones gave cancer, even in rare cases, it would be evident by now! The number of people that have phone constantly with them, near their hands, faces and genitals are in the billions and was a sudden change from almost 0 to what is today in just about 20 years, if it was capable to generate cancer even at 1 in a million rate, it would be quite easy to measure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:54AM (9 children)
Um.
You're aware of studies showing lower bone density in hips on the side matching cell carry? And of "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter" (ssummarized: http://www.icems.eu/papers/SummaryGuilianifeb25th.pdf) [icems.eu] ?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:08AM (4 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:52AM (1 child)
Go on, volunteer in such a study and you'll get the info before anyone else.
Fucking alpine resort statisticians. When it's convenient for them, they throw in your face their statistics as the God's gospel, especially when it comes to the rigorous science of economics. When is not convenient, they ask hard proof with rigorous experiments on human subjects and maybe even ask for L50 with 1e-6 precision.
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @03:57AM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:30AM (1 child)
You didn't read what I linked.
So I feel no need to inform you. But I guess other soylentils might profit by knowing.
The hip density reproduced with a cohort of 10k mixed gender, iirc. The linked pdf is a summary (you damn lazy bastard, I didn't even link the full length, you didn't even follow the link before wasting our time here) of mechanisms which are known in vitro, ie. there's essentially unlimited lab repro, and no clean environmental data, so "reproduceability" doesn't apply any more than asking which of existentialism and utilitarianism is more orange-coloured.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:52PM
I'll note that the link (to a "Non thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between EMF and living matter: a selected Summary") mentions Galileo once which is more often than it mentions the phrases, "hip" or "bone density". If that was a study alleging "lower bone density in hips", you'd think those words would get mentioned. And two pages of a 17 page document are thrown away on an irrelevant historical lecture.
And now that I have wasted my time, do you have a link to the alleged studies in question?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @02:11AM (1 child)
You are confusing correlation with causation... the fact is that people naturally prefer to carry their cell phones on the side with lower hip bone density to balance themselves out.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:32AM
I mean, you say that in jest, but people tend to be dominant-footed on the opposite side to -handed, and tend to holster a cell on the dominant-handed side, and there very well could be higher density in the dominant-foot-side hip, especially in athletes who run and pivot a lot, etc. So, +1 accidentaly insightful?
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday November 29 2019, @09:27AM (1 child)
Even if that's true, lower bone density isn't cancer. Whether EM fields are detrimental is not the same as non-ionizing radiation causing cancer.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:51PM
Perhaps the mere weight of the cell phone is a factor?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 29 2019, @03:44AM (5 children)
You mean we'll know in another 10 or 20 years if/when the chickens come home to roost. Possibly even longer if the report about bone density posted by the AC proves out.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @03:57AM (3 children)
"IF".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:35AM (2 children)
Moron. Instead of "that could be incorrect" try backing it up with some research. Criticize the power or magnitude of the study.
Or keep acting like you have here. Fucking... actions like yours are why I cannot unequivocally say I'd never help run someone out of town. If you showed up at the bar near here acting like this on Friday, you wouldn't be in town and able to walk by Monday. Git. Git, you diseased, courage-free piece of shit.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 29 2019, @08:41AM
Sounds like someone's butthurt. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with concepts like cumulative lifetime dose or decompensation.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:40PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:56AM
Yesterday I was stopped at an intersection and watched a millenial almost rearend a semi. Of course her face was turned toward her lap till the last second. Anyway, between thumb arthritis and traffic attrition, phones just may be the end of them.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday November 29 2019, @06:40AM (3 children)
Well there have been numerous reports about the deteriorating sperm quality over the last decade(s). I have no clue about correlation and causation regarding cell phones, but there are certainly things that are worth looking at. To say that there has been no change in this time window is not correct. The change might be entirely unrelated, or it might not. I do not have the data to suggest either way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:57AM
Hmmmm ... when did the phase lead out of gas? That must be it -- people should start sucking on fishing weights to get the lead back in their pencils.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:00AM
The real problems will start, when 'second hand' EM radiation becomes a problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:37AM
Thought - occupations have shifted, and also % of life spent as a student. Heat and sperm count are well established as negatively correlated. (The primary mechanism basically seems to be that "sperm metabolize and die faster when it's a degree or three warmer".) Does this trend correlate with amount of time sitting? Ie. with amount of time that testicles are trapped between a warm body and an insulating seat?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @10:58AM (1 child)
non-ionizing radiation has effects (and not just for cooking stuff):
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221813-700-get-your-head-round-this/ [newscientist.com]
Perhaps it's fine to over-clock your cells but I'd prefer to keep such radiation sources away from my brain.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @05:06PM