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: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:41PM (1 child)
I see kids everywhere with their phones in their back pockets. Don't they break when they sit on them? Of course I keep my phone in my shirt pocket.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:59PM
Didn't you learn from Maurice Moss?
DON'T keep it in your shirt pocket!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:45PM (6 children)
Straight to the face when holding it to your head. Also a funny fact, companies in the industry make human head-shaped dummy loads specifically for the purpose of determining the energy absorption pattern into the human head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:50PM (1 child)
1W of what?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:37AM
Juice
(Score: 4, Funny) by Snotnose on Friday November 29 2019, @01:10AM (3 children)
Yeah, no. The dummy heads are to see how well both the speaker and the microphone works under various conditions.
Then again, a day or two ago someone called me a 20 year Qualcomm fanboi, so I guess my experience counts less than common tropes.
/ in 20 years there was 1 requirement I really wanted to test
// base stations had to survive x number of shotgun blasts from y feet
/// Granted, I'm software and that's more a hardware thing. But damn, I sure wanted to get paid for shooting shotguns at things
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 29 2019, @01:33AM
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Or perhaps we're discussing different vendors and applications.
Besides, if shit it the fan and comms had to be disabled hypothetically in the game of minecraft, people trying to take it out wouldn't use shotguns, they'd use rifles and attack the antennae rather than the ground electronics. Protective radomes for consumer cheapshit have a dielectric constant of 3 or less, with the lesser the better. Generally speaking, the lesser, the weaker but the more efficient in passing power transmission.
High-power applications that you won't see on the streets can afford to use more exotic plastics with properties that will not allow birdshot or rifle bullets to pass.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 29 2019, @05:21AM (1 child)
If you are talking about my comment, I was just reminding the crowd of this comment: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=21827&page=1&cid=575409#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Not intended as a slight.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Saturday November 30 2019, @12:31AM
Didn't take it as a slight, just surprised anyone cared enough to keep track of my postings.
For the record, I've never worked harder, for more hours, for so long, as I did for Qualcomm. The pay was good, but the stock options, heh, I lucked out. Management not only gave me aggressive deadlines, they knew I was learning new stuff meeting those deadlines and gave me time to learn it. Plus the training. Took a 2 day class on how to interview. A 4 day class on CDMA. A 5 day class on how to be a manager. Those are the ones I remember. When I took a class they adjusted my schedule so I wasn't spending 8 hours in class, then 8 hours working.
They also had a library where I could check out books, and if a book I wanted to read wasn't in stock I could request it. Books I remember checking out include Schnier's Applied Cryptography (I asked for that one, they bought it and let me read it for a month), classic books on white box/black box/ grey box testing, and Rayleigh scattering (I wrote a bunch of code that had to deal with it)
From what I understand that Qualcomm doesn't exist anymore. Paul Jacobs killed the Epic Christmas parties and the great family oriented summer picnics. I don't know anyone that works there any more, most of my co-workers bailed before Steve Mellenkompf (sp?) took over.
I worked with Steve when, it turns out, he was a new hire (only in integration meetings. I was representing one Globalstar subsystem, he was representing another). Great guy, nice guy, smart as fuck. Surprised any of my co-workers actually got to be CEO of a huge company like QC, but not surprised Steve got there.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:49PM (35 children)
Notice the use of the word "may". It's true logically, even if you aren't exceeding federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. And it's too bad that the Ninth once against placed a spurious nuisance law over the free speech rights of the businesses that have to comply with it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @12:19AM
Living in California may cause you to become a wingnut... this article provides further proof. When's that earthquake coming?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @12:57AM
Future updates of the Berkeley ordinance will require retailers to inform consumers that cell phones carried in a pants or shirt pocket may signal to aliens that you accept their offer of anal probing and cattle mutilation.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday November 29 2019, @01:06AM (4 children)
Showing that your cell phones do not exceed these limits should absolve you of having to notify customers that it does exceed them. But it should have to be properly and independently tested.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @01:51AM (3 children)
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
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday November 29 2019, @02:56AM (2 children)
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
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
I'm sure I've seen them in congress too. So many of them all in one place.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 29 2019, @01:12AM
All the women I know who tuck their cellphones into their bras are bigger girls with fat tits. You won't see any skinny girls with a measly B-cup or below holding their phones that way for aesthetic reasons. There's probably a more safe level of attenuation with a fat-titted chick in an animal-print top with a phone tucked in front of her tit, pulling it out occasionally away from her face to check for texts, rather than somebody who makes regular calls with the Wi-Fi enabled next to their craniums.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jimtheowl on Friday November 29 2019, @01:23AM (20 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:08AM (19 children)
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday November 29 2019, @02:30AM (18 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:35AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:42AM (1 child)
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
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)
(Score: 5, Informative) by SomeGuy on Friday November 29 2019, @03:34AM (4 children)
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)
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?
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)
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
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
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)
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)
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:25AM
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
The First Amendment makes no such exception.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday November 29 2019, @05:12AM (2 children)
So... what's next? De jure right to vote for businesses? Maybe even proportional with the value of their accounts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @06:08AM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by coolgopher on Friday November 29 2019, @06:36AM
Considering how good they are at evading taxation, evading jury duty would not be much of an inconvenience...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Friday November 29 2019, @07:26AM (2 children)
That was my reaction too. I'm not sure why the CTIA are worried, everything sold in California already carries at least one warning of the form:
(adapted from vaguely Prop-65-like text). You just expect to see that everywhere, this is just another bit of background noise that's added to everything you buy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 29 2019, @09:23AM
Why aren't babies labeled?
WARNING: Living is known to the state of California to result in death.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @07:20PM
It's another thing that costs money to comply with, and if you flub it, it can cost you even more.
(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
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Friday November 29 2019, @07:17AM (6 children)
I had not even considered the third option, is that even a thing? That said. If you are not supposed to carry the phone in a pocket on your body where or how are you supposed to carry it with you? Are you supposed to always hold it in your hand? Is your handed supposed to be extended out and away from your body at all time? Should I have a some kind of portable faraday cage that shields me from the harmful radiation (and also makes the phone useless as it will not be receiving any calls or data)? Perhaps I should just put the phone in some kind of little cart that I pull behind me?
If it is so dangerous shouldn't there be guidelines available for this?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:41AM (1 child)
"Beside" would be a purse or bag (you... saw the "bra" bit, right?) and "behind" would be a backpack. So uh, yes?
Isn't... that... exactly the point of TFA?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Friday November 29 2019, @08:19AM
As far as I can tell from TFA all it does is tell me what I should NOT do, not what I should do. To that they apparently have no answers and just removing two or three options still leaves a lot of room of potential things to do which may or may not be safe.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 29 2019, @09:36AM
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/smartphone-wheels-d-render-31974998.jpg [dreamstime.com]
Just tie one end of a string to it, the other end to your belt loop. Or, if you have a nice round ass stuffed inside of a sheer skirt, tie it to your bra. The phone will follow you at whatever distance you deem to be "safe".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:54PM
I use a holster case that I put on my belt.
There. Problem solved. And I did it without even realizing there *was* a problem to be solved.
That makes me a genius! Hooray for me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:23AM (1 child)
HOWEVER I'd suggest keeping phones away from your head for long periods since high fevers are considered bad for brains, and fever temperature changes aren't a huge increase from the perspective of cellphone radiation heating. Anyone going to bet it's impossible for a cellphone next to your skull, to heat tiny "hotspots" of your brain more than 3C above normal for "too long"?
Just a few minutes of "high fever" isn't probably going to be a big problem compared to the other stuff we do to our brains. But you might wish to take some countermeasures if you're going to talk for hours on the phone daily...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @06:16PM
I don't think heating is the problem. I think it's just used to redirect from the actual concerns.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Osamabobama on Friday November 29 2019, @05:42PM
47 C.F.R. § 1.1310 [cornell.edu]
(c) The SAR [specific absorption rate] limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit is 4 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes to determine compliance with general population/uncontrolled SAR limits.
Okay, I did the easy half. Any good sources on cell phone emissions? I found one that suggested that phones only transmitted more than a watt during a brief period at the start of a call. But I wouldn't call it definitive, so I left it out.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.