Cellular trade body The CTIA is challenging a San Francisco ordinance that requires radiation labels on every mobile phone sold, claiming that such a rule breaches the US constitution. The ordinance, passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in June, requires buyers to be informed "at the point of sale" about the …
The woo-woo of "mobile phone radiation" has had its day. Time to kill it off. Unless the judge presiding this case is overtaken by emotion and rules in favor of the woo-woo...
Everyone does realize that the frequencies of radio waves which are used by cell phones have many of the same qualities as those frequencies of radio waves your microwave oven uses, right? And, among those qualities is the quality to cook food, or specifically meat! Although the power levels that phones emit are only a small fraction of the power levels used in microwave ovens, I would personally consider it nice to know the levels the phones are emitting. And, yes, those levels might influence my purchases of phones. One example would be, in the city with easy access to cell towers, why not go with the lowest possible emission levels and worry about my health. However, if I lived in a remote location I would have to accept higher levels and use a bluetooth device to keep the phone away. But yes, I think the cell makers should have the radiation levels available for their phones. If not a sticker right on the phone, then the phones documentation should contain these specifications. And, there should be standards in play, so one phone can be compared against another in a meaningful way. As, I would highly suspect that cell manufacturers would want to play games with these figures. But, figure it out for yourself. The cost of cell phone manufacturers to provide this data would amount to a penny or two per phone, so why are they so loath to provide the data? And, yes, I do know there are federal regulations which set allowable levels. Having been involved in industries utilizing various levels of radio frequencies in the microwave bands, I am also aware that these levels of radiation allowed are MUCH TOO HIGH, in my opinion. And, maybe cooking your head will cause cancer, maybe it won't, and once your head is cooked, maybe you won't care. ROFLOL
Much as I hate to agree ...
... because this whole thing is a bunch of pseudo-scientific codswallop (same frequency as microwave ovens therefore dangerous - I despair, really I do), there is no harm in letting people know these things. People can then choose to ignore it, take it into account based on various factors of their own (someone might want one with a higher output, for instance), or make it the key part of their choice. There is actually no down-side to this.
I had no trouble finding the relevant SAR declarations for several phones online - and I seem to remember seeing a hardcopy of this in the documentation supplied with my phone. I guess the phone manufacturers have no problem with supplying the SAR info (AFAIK, they are obliged to provide this) but they may have a problem with placing a sticker on the outside of the box which amounts to some kind of health warning when no causal link has been proven between mobile phone use and harm to users. Given the prevalence of litigation in the USA, the phone manufacturers may also be concerned that the presence of the stickers will be seen as some kind of admission of harm caused by their products and therefore, liability.
You also mention the use of Bluetooth devices but why shouldn't these devices also be subject to the same constraints? Bluetooth operates closer to the frequencies used by microwave ovens than mobile phones. Surely Bluetooth and WLAN devices, microwave ovens and any other RF emitting device should have to be labelled in the same way?
One option for the phone manufacturers would be to refuse to supply phones in SF, forcing residents to buy phones elsewhere (without any extra labels).
So the levels are much too high, in your opinion.
Well, I think it stands to reason that if they were, then people would be dropping like flies all over the world. Which they aren't.
What makes you think that this radiation can 'specifically' cook meat? I think this just may be that English doesn't seem to be your native language, and that you may have meant 'including' meat?
It doesn't cook food at all. It heats water. If the food has water in it, it gets hot. Anything in a microwave that has water in it gets hot.
However, as far as I know, there isn't a single case of proven harm done to a person by the emmissions from a mobile MAST, let alone a phone, anywhere in the world. Ever. Even in California.
SAR measurements are psuedo-scientific garbage
As a rough guide, sure. Perhaps to *one* significant figure. Maybe "small", "medium", and "large".
Having reviewed some of the associated literature, they have to oh-so-precisely adjust the handset-under-test to ever-so-tight distances and angles to achieve even approximately repeatable measurements. In other words, rubbish.
Anyone with a shred of common sense and decency would raise the red flag and end their involvement in what can only be described as a crock of sh*t. But at many thousands and thousands of dollars for what should be a five-minute test (other than the full day of fiddling), it's a lucrative business.
If you see a SAR value with two or three significant digits, it's just bad science and meaningless "accuracy".
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Apple: We'll unleash OS X Yosemite beta on the MASSES July 24
- Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network