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: 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?