San Francisco Passes Cellphone Radiation Law

[Pangloss]

So why is it that people view the left as more intelligent than the right, exactly?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/us/16cell.html

 

Imposing roughly the same cautionary standards for cellphones as for fatty food or sugary soda, this city — never shy about its opinions — voted on Tuesday to require all retailers to display the amount of radiation each phone emits.

 

The law — believed to be the first of its kind in the nation — came despite a lack of conclusive scientific evidence showing that the devices are dangerous, and amid opposition from the wireless telephone industry, which views the labeling ordinance as a potential business-killing precedent.

 

I love this ironic punch-line at the end of the article:

 

“Nobody loves his iPhone more than Mayor Newsom.”

[swansont]

I missed where the article gives a breakdown of the vote or the makeup of the board.

[Pangloss]

Here are some interesting examples of how the media plays into this kind of pseudoscience.

 

USA Today is touting the law as "pioneering". (link)

 

CNN focuses on how the law "warns consumers". (link)

 

The articles do mention the lack of scientific evidence, but it seems like the headlines are supportive of the law. It's worth noting that the law is not just intended to show radiation levels, but to actually decrease them, because these lawmakers believe that will be helpful to consumers, in spite of the lack of evidence that this is so.

 

"In addition to protecting the consumers' right to know, this legislation will encourage telephone manufacturers to redesign their devices to function at lower radiation levels," Gavin said in January in proposing the legislation.

 

(That's from the USA Today article.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I missed where the article gives a breakdown of the vote or the makeup of the board.

 

The San Francisco Chronicle has a bit more detail on that.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/15/MNIT1DVPKE.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0r1SX5Esi

[swansont]

 

The San Francisco Chronicle has a bit more detail on that.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/15/MNIT1DVPKE.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0r1SX5Esi

 

The Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to give preliminary approval to the proposal. Final approval is expected next week. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd was the lone vote in opposition.

 

Elsbernd is a Democrat. IOW all of the Republicans voted for this, but only some of the Democrats did. How does that sit with the initial assessment?

 

Maybe we can just discuss the inanity of the legislation instead of trying to address the spin of some non-sequitur.

 

From a scientific standpoint, I think specific absorption is being abused here. If I have a mass of 100 kg, does a phone with an SAR of 1.6W/kg mean it is emitting 160 Watts? And for a user who has a mass of 70 kg, the power drops to 112 Watts? No. SAR is measured using a calibration standard of one gram of tissue (in the US; in Europe it's 10 grams) meaning the gram of tissue absorbs 1.6 milliwatts of radiation from the source, under some geometry.

 

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

 

What might be useful for comparison is the actual power emitted by the phone. Phones have power outputs of a couple of Watts, total. People probably have a much better handle on this, because it's a more common unit. The can, for example, compare it to their microwave, which would be hundreds of times more powerful. But even that is questionable, since there is no conclusive proof that this is a problem, and no proposed mechanism for RF causing cancer.

[Pangloss]

The Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to give preliminary approval to the proposal. Final approval is expected next week. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd was the lone vote in opposition.

 

Elsbernd is a Democrat. IOW all of the Republicans voted for this, but only some of the Democrats did. How does that sit with the initial assessment?

 

Maybe we can just discuss the inanity of the legislation instead of trying to address the spin of some non-sequitur.

 

Uh, every sitting member of the Board of Supervisors is a Democrat, swansont. Nice try, though.

 

 

From a scientific standpoint, I think specific absorption is being abused here. If I have a mass of 100 kg, does a phone with an SAR of 1.6W/kg mean it is emitting 160 Watts? And for a user who has a mass of 70 kg, the power drops to 112 Watts? No. SAR is measured using a calibration standard of one gram of tissue (in the US; in Europe it's 10 grams) meaning the gram of tissue absorbs 1.6 milliwatts of radiation from the source, under some geometry.

 

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

 

What might be useful for comparison is the actual power emitted by the phone. Phones have power outputs of a couple of Watts, total. People probably have a much better handle on this, because it's a more common unit. The can, for example, compare it to their microwave, which would be hundreds of times more powerful. But even that is questionable, since there is no conclusive proof that this is a problem, and no proposed mechanism for RF causing cancer.

 

Interesting stuff. I thought handsets were restricted to 0.6w peak output, so I was kinda surprised to hear this, but this Wikipedia article also states that GSM output can reach 2 watts. I didn't realize it was that much.

 

Not that that's a lot, I suppose, but more than I thought.

[swansont]

Uh, every sitting member of the Board of Supervisors is a Democrat, swansont. Nice try, though.

 

a) party affiliation information isn't present in your link

b) it's not true

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_San_Francisco_Board_of_Supervisors

all current members of the Board of Supervisors are registered Democrats

except for Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, a member of the Green Party

 

So my spin still works. Every Republican on the board voted for the proposal.

 

Interesting stuff. I thought handsets were restricted to 0.6w peak output, so I was kinda surprised to hear this, but this Wikipedia article also states that GSM output can reach 2 watts. I didn't realize it was that much.

 

Not that that's a lot, I suppose, but more than I thought.

 

 

The European SAR limit is also higher, so the 2W may be referring to European phones.

[Pangloss]

Party affiliation was there, you just had to actually click on the names of the board members, but it sounds like you found it anyway. Obviously no Republicans in the lot.

[DJBruce]

To be completely honest its San Francisco, I am not really surprised by anything they do. I highly doubt this bill will make any difference. I mean do you honestly think that when a person goes to buy a new phone their line of questioning will be:

 

So can I get my email on this phone?

Does it take pictures and videos?

Can I download Apps for it?

How much radiation does this phone admit and does it comply with the FCC's standards?

 

I really don't think anyone will stop and look at the chart. So the law is basically useless.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_San_Francisco_Board_of_Supervisors

all current members of the Board of Supervisors are registered Democrats

except for Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, a member of the Green Party

 

So my spin still works. Every Republican on the board voted for the proposal.

 

Also, not a single Republican voted for it. Also, this was all completely partisan.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Still, I've always wanted some proper consumer information, specifically info related to the more important attributes of a product, to be available to consumers. The power output of the cellphone is one of those important attributes: a stronger signal reaches further, while a weaker signal interferes less with other devices and uses less power.