Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
WATCH: Shredding On The Google Guitar!
San Francisco becomes first US city to pass radiation warning law for cell phones
Yes, seriously. The city has been busy in recent weeks, pushing for this in the name of "the consumer's right to know." The law will require visible warnings to be posted right next to phones in stores so that shoppers can read -- in mandated 11-point or higher type -- each unit's specific absorption rate.
The specific absorption rate, or SAR (a soon-to-be buzzword) [it's only one letter away from SARS -Ed], measures the amount of radiation absorbed into the user's body. Now, the funny thing about the SAR of a mobile phone is that the FCC already mandates that 1.6 W/kg is the maximum rating a phone can have and still be sold in the United States; in Europe, it's 2 W/kg. The sort of people that are the most likely to make a scene about their phone's SAR won't bother to look that up, though. You know the type, ... they sneer at you if you don't drive a hybrid, and they snoop through their neighbors' recycling bins at night to be sure they're following all the rules.
As you may have guessed, the wireless carriers and phone manufacturers aren't too happy about this, since it has a high likelihood of spreading to other cities. This, however, isn't like the old Big Tobacco vs. The People unpleasantness of the past. Even the National Cancer Institute says that cell phone radiation poses no threat to health. This is from their own website:
Research suggests that the amount of RF energy produced by cell phones is too low to cause significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature
Research studies have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancer.
In case you're curious or in need of some perspective, the iPhone 3GS has a SAR of 0.79 W/kg, while the Nexus One rates at 0.37 W/kg (both are head-level measurements, FCC rating system).
All this law will actually do is cause consumers to start thinking that some phones are healthier than others, and that will, in turn, spur a whole slew of new marketing campaigns that try to sell phones to people on the merit of their SAR. What's really odd about this whole thing is that the city's mayor, Gavin Newsom, is so attached to his own iPhone that it may actually be grafted to his hand. The guy's got 1.3 million followers on Twitter! Does he really want to start making people who live in and around a tech-absorbed city fear their cell phones?
Comments
14
Subscribe to commentsrichard.gaileyJun 17th 2010 9:06AM
This article reminds me of my flat mate who would always answer/ talk with his iPhone far away from his head and with it in his out stretched hands. He looked like a right plonker walking along the street. His excuse was that he didn't want the radiation effecting his head?! I guess his hands were made of lead.
His hair was nearly half way down his back, had chronic OCD and was an avid Apple fan boy. I still facepalm when I see him in town.
PlacemanJun 17th 2010 9:36AM
What's wrong with San Fransisco? I kinda wish it would just break off from CA and float out into the ocean. They give the rest of Californians a bad name.
JawshJun 19th 2010 9:25PM
Yeah, with all of its beautiful buildings, well-put-together city planning projects, and friendly people. What a horrible town.
RichardJun 17th 2010 9:53AM
To be honest, this is a bit of a non-issue. Europe has required that you include the SAR (both head and body) in the technical specifications for every mobile phone for at least 10 years.
I'm not sure why anyone in the USA is getting upset, it's not going to affect sales in the slightest.
stinlen56Jun 17th 2010 10:00AM
Perhaps they are getting upset because it's promoting a fallacy. If all the phones have been determined to be safe, yet they have radiation levels listed, people will think that those will lower ratings are safer when that just isn't the case. And really, to be fair, since when does the fact that Europe is doing something preclude concern on the part of the US? Last time I checked, Greece and Spain were in Europe, along with the Euro, and none of these things are exactly synonymous with great decision making.
Sam JJun 17th 2010 11:45AM
I am quite shocked by the tone of this article, speaking so cynically of consumer advocacy and even hybrid car drivers (especially during the Gulf oil spill?) ...
"It's hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us."
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
Matthew RogersJun 17th 2010 12:00PM
So, because there's an oil spill in the Gulf right now, it's suddenly wrong to call annoying people what they are (annoying).
Consumer advocacy doesn't mean consumer blindfolding.
stinlen56Jun 17th 2010 12:29PM
Right, because hybrid cars don't take oil to produce...?
AnthonyJun 17th 2010 12:49PM
You're quoting GQ?!? Really?!? My cell phone (a Moto V9x) remains in my pocket throughout most of the day and my father's phone (a JeebusPhone 3G) is practically glued to his ear, yet neither of us have grown limbs or lumps, mumps, or bumps in the respective areas. Nor have all of the other people I know that have cell phones. Methinks its a non-issue that's only going to stir up confusion.
Sam JJun 17th 2010 2:07PM
The GQ article is only one perspective, I didn't say it was gospel. Also I didn't say hybrid cars are the best thing since sliced bread, merely that I was shocked by the tone of the author referring to the drivers as annoying. I would tend to think Benz or giant-SUV drivers are WAY more annoying than hybrid drivers.
So you guys are probably all on board for genetically modified food to replace all 'normal' food then too, right? Because there aren't any proven side effects now (except in lab rats), this must mean that it is 100% safe and the people trying to ban GMO are left-wing whackos. There aren't huge industries that stand to profit from this technology are there?
Or I wonder if there were ever a product that was rushed to market only to discover later that it was a catastrophe... ? Nah.
I don't mean to be annoying either. All I'm saying is this topic (cell phone radiation) at least deserves more research, and certainly not the naive sarcasm/cynicism put forth by this article.
Matthew RogersJun 17th 2010 2:33PM
Don't get me wrong, just because I can't stand the people that take their "green" fight too far doesn't mean that I drive a gas-guzzler or love cornfed genetically modified beef. I just think there's a point when things are getting silly. The SAR has been posted in the tech specs for phones for quite some time now -- it's there for people to see. If people cared enough to look, they don't have to look very far.
One phone isn't going to cause more cancer than another phone if cell phones in general don't cause cancer to begin with. If they find conclusive evidence that cell phone radiation is actually dangerous, then that would be a different story -- and it's not like they haven't tried. Then again, I really don't think that cell phones would be used less even if they were found to be slightly carcinogenic. We all use them too much.
As it stands now, this is really nothing more than a gimmick to make the city look like it's trailblazing (again). I'm from there, it's nothing new.
I wouldn't call cell phones something that's been "rushed to market," either. And the likelihood of us suddenly discovering that they're so dangerous that it's a "catastrophe" seems too low to consider, since there's not only been studies, but apparently enough for the FCC and its EU counterpart to set standards for acceptable levels.
I think that people tend to forget that the word "radiation" doesn't always mean "dangerous."
Sam JJun 17th 2010 2:49PM
I'm sure there is some of what SF does that is for appearances sake, but I think they've also done a bulk of the very legitimate trailblazing this country needs. If not for SF forging through many of these issues (and yes, occasional BS) the country would be far worse off. At least in my humble/liberal opinion.
I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable person on this issue, but I think it's worth taking seriously. I hate to make the obvious probably over-the-top analogy, but cigarettes were once a very hot commodity (not unlike cell phones) and it took years of legislative fighting to get any sort of warning label on those packages. And I'd say it's justified.
Also @Anthony, some of the editorials in GQ are top notch. It's not all mens-equivalent-of-Cosmo within.
ShigawireJun 22nd 2010 3:18PM
There is a huge difference between saying that something poses "no risk to health" and saying that studies have not shown a consistent link with cancer. The truth is, it hasn't been proven either way.
I'm not saying cell phone radiation causes cancer - I sure hope it doesn't - but let's be honest and say "we haven't found any problems so far," and not "we can conclusively say that it causes no problems." If that had really been proven, it would be big news that we'd all have heard about immediately.
ScootahJun 24th 2010 2:59AM
If I was a phone vendor in Sanfrancisco - I'd be looking into making a point of this. 'This phone has a SAR of 0.79 W/kg. That's a lifetime emission rate of almost as much radiation as you were exposed to by taking your microwave out of the box!'
What a crock of crap.