Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:08AM (19 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @02:08AM (#925853) Journal
    For starters, not forcing the business to put stuff on its cell phones just because some politician wants to generate some theater.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday November 29 2019, @02:30AM (18 children)

    by jimtheowl (5929) on Friday November 29 2019, @02:30AM (#925870)
    That is not a right, nor a political matter. Sorry I asked.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:35AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @02:35AM (#925871) Journal
      It is in that the business is being forced to say/print things that don't have a compelling societal or legal reason.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:42AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:42AM (#925901)

        Since it's not a lie, why do you object? It's not like a sticker will lower the productivity.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @03:51AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @03:51AM (#925908) Journal

          Since it's not a lie

          It probably is a lie because it'll give a misleading impression (probably intentional) of the risk of cell phones.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:39AM (14 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @02:39AM (#925872) Journal
      Suppose that Berkeley mandates that cell phone users verbally warn bystanders of this particular caution. Something like "if you stand near me, you 'may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation'." Doesn't forcing people to say things abridge their freedom of speech?
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by SomeGuy on Friday November 29 2019, @03:34AM (4 children)

        by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday November 29 2019, @03:34AM (#925897)

        Except that is not what they are doing. They are requiring retailers to inform customers.

        Many, many other kinds of products already require retailers to inform customers of potential dangers.

        "free speech right of the businesses" is the right to lie to customers.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @03:56AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @03:56AM (#925910) Journal

          Many, many other kinds of products already require retailers to inform customers of potential dangers.

          AC mentioned the risk of "anal probing and cattle mutilation" [soylentnews.org] from cell phones. Why aren't we requiring warning labels for that too?

          "free speech right of the businesses" is the right to lie to customers.

          Only lying going on is the unfounded assertion that cell phones "may" exceed some federal guideline for RF radiation - intentionally implying risk without actually providing any evidence for the risk.

          • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday November 29 2019, @01:17PM (2 children)

            by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday November 29 2019, @01:17PM (#925998)

            These phones DO exceed some federal guideline for RF radiation (unless TFA is lying to us). I'd presume those guidelines are there for an actual reason. Just because the risks are low and nebulous does not mean they are not real.

            You sound like a typical consumertard that has been so brainwashed by advertising they refuse to see any actual problem with their precious cell phones.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:42PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @02:42PM (#926011) Journal

              These phones DO exceed some federal guideline for RF radiation (unless TFA is lying to us).

              And your evidence is? I'll note as contrary evidence that cell phones are still being sold today despite violating this alleged RF limit.

            • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday November 29 2019, @05:14PM

              by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday November 29 2019, @05:14PM (#926051)

              The article focused on the legal battle and the positive effects of the city having won in court. The federal guideline for RF radiation was used as a throwaway line to justify the court action, but the technical information behind the federal guideline wasn't even mentioned. What is the limit? What do the cell phones emit? What is the risk of exceeding the limit?

              This story has nothing substantive to do with radiation; it is entirely about a legal battle over marketing.

              --
              Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:45AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:45AM (#925905)

        Suppose that Berkeley mandates that cell phone users verbally warn bystanders of this particular caution.

        Straws may be cheap, supposedly speaking. As it seems to be khallow's time, he can afford to build men of those straws.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @03:56AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @03:56AM (#925911) Journal
          Ever hear of analogy?
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:25AM (#925955)

            No. Is there something akin to it, by which I could understand it?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:45PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:45PM (#926041)

        Suppose that Berkeley mandates that cell phone users verbally warn bystanders of this particular caution. Something like "if you stand near me, you 'may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation'." Doesn't forcing people to say things abridge their freedom of speech?

        Suppose I shove a huge butt plug up your ass and you like it so much that you orgasm immediately.

        Doesn't forcing you to have an orgasm constitute abridgement of your freedom of movement?

        And, as I would never do such a thing, the results (sorry, you'll need your boyfriend to fuck you in the ass for that) aren't relevant.

        See. I can make shit up too.

        Perhaps you could claim that the Berkeley Town Council prayed to statues of Marx, Lenin and Stalin before every session too. Or that the Coriolis effect is a secret Chilean plot to destroy America.

        You're such a disingenuous piece of shit, Khallow. And the worst part is that you know it.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @05:03PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @05:03PM (#926049) Journal
          Was it consensual or not? If not, it is rape (which is a felony in most parts of the world) whether or not it is enjoyed.

          See. I can make shit up too.

          But I see you can't make up shit relevant to the topic. My point here is that if Berkeley were to attempt to impose the same speech restrictions on individuals as on businesses, it would run hard into the First Amendment. What's different about requiring businesses to make phony warnings rather than individuals?

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @05:30PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @05:30PM (#926055)

            Because corporations aren't people.

            The government is precluded from infringing on the free speech of *people*.

            Corporations are legal fictions *sponsored* by the government. If you wish to maintain such sponsorship, you will do as the government tells you to do.

            The government has the right to regulate the activities of *corporations*, as the government sponsors and provides benefits to such corporations.

            Actually, a better use of a large butt plug for you would be to keep you from talking out of your ass all the time. I think that would be a great societal good. In fact, I'm going to write my congressperson and lobby for the "Stop Talking Out of your Ass Please Act (STOP)."

            Such a law would require butt plugs for disingenuous dickheads like you. Forcing you to stop stinking up the place.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @07:05PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @07:05PM (#926100) Journal

              Because corporations aren't people.

              The government is precluded from infringing on the free speech of *people*.

              What of businesses that aren't corporations? Again, this infringes on the rights of the people who make up the business, owners and employees to put what they want on the side of that packaging.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @08:09PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @08:09PM (#926129)

                What of businesses that aren't corporations? Again, this infringes on the rights of the people who make up the business, owners and employees to put what they want on the side of that packaging.

                Bullshit.

                Individuals can still say whatever they want. In fact, even if an individual works for a business that is required to provide such labels/signage, when that individual isn't acting as a *representative of that business*, they can certainly say it's stupid or unnecessary if they like.

                You continue, as usual, to talk out of your ass.

                Fuck off, jackass.

                • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @08:23PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @08:23PM (#926136) Journal

                  when that individual isn't acting as a *representative of that business*

                  The First Amendment makes no such exception.