back to article CTIA cites First Amendment protection of radiation levels

The CTIA is arguing that a San Francisco ordinance demanding radiation levels be displayed on phone packaging breaches the First Amendment of the US constitution, and is thus illegal. Speaking to CNET, the wireless telecommunications organisation claimed that forcing shops to reveal the specific absorption rate (SAR) of phone …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
WTF?

If this flies with the judge....

Could one also use it to not use it to choose not to testify (assuming that its someone elses trial and there's no question of self incrimination in your testemony).

0
0
FAIL

what's going on at CTIA

Asides from this ridiculous attitude to consumer care the CTIA is losing credibility fast.

I've just returned from the CTIA annual wireless shingdig at the Orange country convention center in Orlando. This was considered the second best wireless industry event of the yearly calendar after MWC in Barcelona. Last year, in Las Vegas, it was good - This year It was totally rubbish - it looked more like a Sunday market with car-boot sale for smartphone covers and headsets.

Compared to MWC, which was a fantastic event, the CTIA was a total non-event.

Time to look in the mirror over there and make some hard decisions - or it will go the way of WiMAX.

0
0

Precedent...

What would be next, medical firms arguing that it's not fair to impose on them the requirement to list the side effects of their latest pill?

0
0
Troll

Right to Free Silence

Doesn't really have the same ring.

I guess on the bright side, if they win with this argument, I won't have to hear those long lists of side-effects for prescription med ads, no more disclaimers, no more "not for children under the age of" etc etc.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I can se their point...

Take the stupid carbon foot print thing in the Uk.

I bought an article the other day that was 80 carbon footprint something or others. Is that good? Bad? Is the world going to end just becuase I bought this product, or did I just save the would instead? Who knows?

So stick a label on.

Hey this phone has 1.5W/kg SAR.

Sure that'll help swing your choice.....

0
0
Go

They've got a good case

As there's no evidence of any link between cell phone radiation and, well, anything else. The State of Vermont attempted to impose a similar law in the mid-to-late '90s, requiring all retailers to label dairy products which were produced, or may have been produced, from the milk of cows given rBGH. The law was overturned on precisely these grounds.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Wasn't there a highly publicised study just last week

precisely linking weaker hip bones to cell phone use?

Sure the population size in the study was relatively small (48), but that doesn't mean it's possible to disprove it yet.

0
1
Silver badge

Not quite.

The article's on El Reg. Thing is, the only links they could provide were correlations, not causalities. Furthermore, they did not factor in controls (using a dead weight for a control) and other factors such as phone position (left vs. right).

1
0
HMB
Alert

Science is... But....

Science isn't science unless it's peer reviewed and verified across different experiments and studies.

As such I'm not aware of any corroborated studies or scientific consensus leading to the idea that radiation from phones presents a problem.

Though wait a minute! If phone's give off radiation, doesn't that mean they can explode like nuclear bombs? You know, just like nuclear power plants? It's a conspiracy! Radiation is giving everyone cancer! ARGGHHH!!! Where's my Tinfoil hat!!!? *runs off*

2
2
Bronze badge

Distance the Phone

Well, ONE way to deal with SAR vs the brain is to make cell phones lacking an ear speaker. Better yet, get rid of the mouth mic, too. Design it to REQUIRE a hands-free kit. This would kill two birds with one stone:

-- SAR on the brain

-- DWT, Driving While Talking on the cell phone.

I one does not talk with the phone close to the reproductive organs, this might be a third bird killed. But, a shield of some sort would probably still be needed if the phone radiation at standby becomes something to worry about.

0
0

And the emissions of the hands-free kit?

Yes, Bluetooth is way lower power than the phone - but even so. (No, I don't really think so, but let's have the facts. Someone -may- make a dangerous cell phone one day. One 3G handset - metal - gets hot enough to cause a burn.)

I only guess, but I don't think freedom of speech applies because nobody is forced by law to sell phones. Those who choose to sell phones, are required to describe their radio energy output level.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums