• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law,” BBC, Page last updated at 19:57 GMT, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:57 UK
[SIZE="+2"]S[/SIZE]an Francisco is set to be the first city in the US to require mobile phone retailers to post radiation levels next to handsets they sell.

Excerpted from “Supes back posting of cell phone emission levels” By Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer, The San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, June 16, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE] similar right-to-know measure, carried by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, died in the [California] Legislature this year amid heavy lobbying by the cell phone industry.

San Francisco is leading the way once again on another issue of importance in our lives.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,369
Reaction score
8,101
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
San Francisco is leading the way once again on another issue of importance in our lives.

LOL. Wow. Yep, what would we do without San Francisco looking out for us? LOL
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A large body of research exists, both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals and in humans, that shows overall no evidence for harmful effects. Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks produce similar radiation.

The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, has stated that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects.

Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science." :lol:
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,640
Reaction score
36,647
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hang on, San Francisco, I think I have something that may help here.

 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science." :lol:

In my experience, conservative nutjobs constitute the overwhelming majority of the "anti-science" crowd, no question about it.

But, more important, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors are not anti-science; that's just a slur. The supervisors are pro-consumer and specifically they are for consumers having access to all the product information.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In my experience, conservative nutjobs constitute the overwhelming majority of the "anti-science" crowd, no question about it.

But, more important, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors are not anti-science; that's just a slur.

If you don't recognize this as being directly in contravention of accepted scientific consensus, then I don't think you're one to judge anyone else.

The supervisors are pro-consumer and specifically they are for consumers having access to all the product information.

They should probably also add labels to cigarettes, guns and alcohol to let people know that they're totally like exposing themselves to negative energies, man.
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
… accepted scientific consensus …

Industry promoted consensus, more like.

The proposition that radiation from mobile phones held to the head have no negative affects over a user's lifetime is not established in any form of accepted scientific consensus outside of industry funded studies. It's early days. But, the industry would definitely have the experiment continue.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, they are.

Unless you're trying to say that it's only conservatives who are "anti-science," you're missing part of your sentence here. No, they are....what?

Industry promoted consensus, more like.

The proposition that radiation from mobile phones held to the head have no negative affects over a user's lifetime is not established in any form of accepted scientific consensus outside of industry funded studies. It's early days. But, the industry would definitely have the experiment continue.

And they haven't definitively shown that guns and booze don't create negative energies that harsh your chi either. Better get cracking on those labels, cause that's how science works!
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
… And they haven't definitively shown that guns and booze don't create negative energies that harsh your chi either. Better get cracking on those labels, cause that's how science works!

Open forum at the Board of Supervisors is Tuesday, you feel like stepping up and offering some more warning labels, you're welcome. Thank you for your vigilance.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Open forum at the Board of Supervisors is Tuesday, you feel like stepping up and offering some more warning labels, you're welcome. Thank you for your vigilance.

If San Franciscans don't have the courage to stand up to the Negative Energies lobby, then they deserve what they get. But hey, at least you guys don't have to worry about imaginary brain tumors any more.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
San Francisco is leading the way once again on another issue of importance in our lives.

It's the government's job to protect us from cell phone radiation, but not the government's job to protect us from oil spills?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Honestly I think this law is foolish and unnecessary. Should we put a warning label on the sun, which we know can cause cancer? Cell phone radiation does not cause cancer and many studies have shown this. Cancer is usually caused by mutations in a single cell that result in mass proliferation. Mutations can be caused by many things and just happen randomly. However, our cells have a mechanism that aims to fix mutations when they happen. It all occurs all the time and even the most innocent things (like sunlight) can cause mutations in our DNA, however our body can fix them and does fix them.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
939
Reaction score
96
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Unless you're trying to say that it's only conservatives who are "anti-science," you're missing part of your sentence here. No, they are....what?

Learn to read sentences in context.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,640
Reaction score
36,647
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Industry promoted consensus, more like.

The proposition that radiation from mobile phones held to the head have no negative affects over a user's lifetime is not established in any form of accepted scientific consensus outside of industry funded studies. It's early days. But, the industry would definitely have the experiment continue.

Radio waves are physically incapable of causing the sort of damage that gamma and x-rays do. They don't interact with your body that way. Heat is the only effect they could have on you, so unless you're exposed to a level that literaly cooks you, you'll be fine.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Radio waves are physically incapable of causing the sort of damage that gamma and x-rays do. They don't interact with your body that way. Heat is the only effect they could have on you, so unless you're exposed to a level that literaly cooks you, you'll be fine.

Isn't there an arguement to be made however, that though high frequency radio waves at the power levels in cell phones do not cause enough heat or excite particles enough to cause heat to cook - they do generate more radiation at very low levels and that low level radiation over a long period of time could... maybe ... cause some ill effects?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,640
Reaction score
36,647
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Isn't there an arguement to be made however, that though high frequency radio waves at the power levels in cell phones do not cause enough heat or excite particles enough to cause heat to cook - they do generate more radiation at very low levels and that low level radiation over a long period of time could... maybe ... cause some ill effects?

Radio waves are not a form of ionizing radiation. They don't cause any other effects.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Learn to read sentences in context.

Me: Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."
You: No, they are.

I'm not the one demonstrating grammatical difficulties.

Based on the complexity and cordiality of your response, I'll assume that you were trying to say "No, it is," in which case there's no point in trying to reason with you any further.
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science." :lol:

No, they are.

Me: Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."
You: No, they are.

I'm not the one demonstrating grammatical difficulties.

Based on the complexity and cordiality of your response, I'll assume that you were trying to say "No, it is," in which case there's no point in trying to reason with you any further.

I think it was pretty clear that pro-bipartisan was not commenting on your good feeling but on the part where you posted, “it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."” The point being, “no, conservatives are the only ones that are anti-science.”

That's not too difficult to comprehend, right?
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
In the interest of posting some reasonable source information, I offer: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

“… cientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn.” — National Cancer Institute¹
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think it was pretty clear that pro-bipartisan was not commenting on your good feeling but on the part where you posted, “it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."” The point being, “no, conservatives are the only ones that are anti-science.”

That's not too difficult to comprehend, right?

I assumed that that's what he was getting at, but gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification, due to the fact that a) it wasn't english, and b) stupid generalizations about entire political groups aren't very "pro-bipartisan."

In the interest of posting some reasonable source information, I offer: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

“… cientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn.” — National Cancer Institute¹


And I'm sure that these warning labels will have a substantial impact on cell phone use, on the off chance that the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Radio waves are not a form of ionizing radiation. They don't cause any other effects.

Of the frequencies being used today for mobile phones --- I checked and you're correct that there's nothing conclusive either short term or long term.
 
Top Bottom