Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the all-of-a-glow dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation. The Right to Know. Don't Put in Your Shirt Pocket - Global Research

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @01:51AM (3 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday November 29 2019, @01:51AM (#925846) Homepage
    But that would be imppossible.

    Why?

    Because rats don't have shirt pockets or bras.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday November 29 2019, @02:56AM (2 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Friday November 29 2019, @02:56AM (#925878) Journal

    I could swear I've seen rats with shirt pockets. They tend to be 5'8 to 6'2" high and lack tails. They are most often found in sales offices. You have to look carefully to distinguish them from the weasels.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Webweasel on Friday November 29 2019, @09:07AM

      by Webweasel (567) on Friday November 29 2019, @09:07AM (#925970) Homepage Journal

      Hey! I resemble that remark!

      --
      Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:40PM (#926116)

      I'm sure I've seen them in congress too. So many of them all in one place.