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, 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.