• 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

… 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.

First off, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that further study is required.

Second, you refer to the Board's action as requiring warning labels. That's wrong, too. You're batting 0 (zero) [nada] in this thread. The Board has required that the radiation levels be displayed next to the phones offered for sale. Posting radiation emission levels might be considered a public service by some or as an irrelevancy by others; either way, I suspect that the cell phone industry will manage to survive.
 
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.

They're actually researching the use of radio waves as a cure for cancer. (via some sort of nanoparticle coating of the tumor. zap it with radio waves and it cooks the tumor, or something) Radio waves simply don't interact with organic tissue in a manner that causes ionization damage. As far as we can tell, heat is the only way the waves can be absorbed, and minute amounts of heat simply aren't going to cause trouble. We're bombarded with radio waves 24/7 from numerous sources, and a cell phone's power output is less than one watt, typically. Meanwhile, if you live in a decent sized city you're probably living within a few miles of a 100,000 watt television station.

If it caused cancer, we'd all be freaking dead.
 
First off, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that further study is required.

Translation: "Absolutely NO evidence currently exists that cell phones cause cancer."

Chappy said:
Second, you refer to the Board's action as requiring warning labels. That's wrong, too. You're batting 0 (zero) [nada] in this thread. The Board has required that the radiation levels be displayed next to the phones offered for sale. Posting radiation emission levels might be considered a public service by some or as an irrelevancy by others; either way, I suspect that the cell phone industry will manage to survive.

And maybe 50 years of using the world wide web causes your eyes to fall out. Since no one has used it for 50 years, further study is required. I guess we should mandate that all internet browsers display a disclaimer on the screen, just in case.
 
I usually get a headache when I talk on a cell phone for more than an hour, and that never happens to me with land line phones. I'm not saying cell phones cause cancer but something about electronics definitely affects me. I usually have to switch to speaker phone if I'm talking for a long time otherwise my head gets very warm and I have a headache. Call it anecdotal but it's the truth.

I do think on an energy level cell phones have to be doing something, but the same is true of all electronics so I don't see why cell phones deserve to be singled out.
 
I usually get a headache when I talk on a cell phone for more than an hour, and that never happens to me with land line phones. I'm not saying cell phones cause cancer but something about electronics definitely affects me. I usually have to switch to speaker phone if I'm talking for a long time otherwise my head gets very warm and I have a headache. Call it anecdotal but it's the truth.

Could be the ergonomics of the phone. With landlines (do those still exist?), you typically don't have a glass/plastic screen pressed up against your face. My doctor told me that cell phone use can cause acne (due to that nasty, sweaty, greasy screen), so I wouldn't be surprised if they can cause some other ergonomics-related health issues.

Radiation, however, isn't one of them. ;)
 
Last edited:
I usually get a headache when I talk on a cell phone for more than an hour, and that never happens to me with land line phones. I'm not saying cell phones cause cancer but something about electronics definitely affects me. I usually have to switch to speaker phone if I'm talking for a long time otherwise my head gets very warm and I have a headache. Call it anecdotal but it's the truth.

I do think on an energy level cell phones have to be doing something, but the same is true of all electronics so I don't see why cell phones deserve to be singled out.

Talking an hour straight on the phone would give me a headache, period.
 
Could be the ergonomics of the phone. With landlines (do those still exist?), you typically don't have a glass/plastic screen pressed up against your face. My doctor told me that cell phone use can cause acne (due to that nasty, sweaty, greasy screen), so I wouldn't be surprised if they can cause some other ergonomics-related health issues.

Radiation, however, isn't one of them. ;)

How would the ergonomics cause a headache though? I'm open to theories. I don't crane my neck when I'm on the phone or do the no-handed conversation.
 
How would the ergonomics cause a headache though? I'm open to theories. I don't crane my neck when I'm on the phone or do the no-handed conversation.

But you might hold it differently than a landline in a way that you don't even notice. Or perhaps you use the cell phone under different circumstances (i.e. walking/driving versus sitting/laying). Or maybe you typically use the cell phone at a different time of day than the landline.
 
But you might hold it differently than a landline in a way that you don't even notice. Or perhaps you use the cell phone under different circumstances (i.e. walking/driving versus sitting/laying). Or maybe you typically use the cell phone at a different time of day than the landline.

I'm open to the ergonomics idea. I just can't come up with a logical ergonic explanation for why it would cause headaches. Thanks for trying, but those methods don't see to be problematic for me. Like, I can talk on skype for hours with headphones in my ears no problem, but a cell phone changes the situation.

I don't know about the cancer claim but I do believe that, personally and anecdotally speaking, I think low frequency microwaves from a fixed source over a lengthy period can affect me. I used to live next to a train and the electromagnetic radiation of the tracks increased my frequency of illness. I expect people to call that pseudoscientific, but science doesn't know everything and it knows very little about how different forms of energy affect the human body.
 
I have to ask why we need a law requiring the posting? With a quick search of the internet I found a source that gives a radiation guide for cell phones. IMO a good consumer would reseach whatever product of significants that they were going to buy before puchasing. For those that don't have internet, there is the library. Cell Phone Radiation - 1,000 Cell Phone Radiation Safety Ratings
If SF wants this law, yea for them. So is the next step for SF to post radiation levels for microwaves and TV's?
 
First off, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that further study is required.

You're confusing two things:

"There is no evidence that this causes cancer. Although there's no reason to believe it would, it's technically possible that maybe 50 years of it would, so we can't say with 100% certainty that there's no way it could cause cancer. Accordingly, we should check in on this again later."

and

"We need to study this much more because we don't know what's going on."

The first is what actually happened. The second is what you're erroneously claiming happened.

Second, you refer to the Board's action as requiring warning labels. That's wrong, too. You're batting 0 (zero) [nada] in this thread. The Board has required that the radiation levels be displayed next to the phones offered for sale. Posting radiation emission levels might be considered a public service by some or as an irrelevancy by others; either way, I suspect that the cell phone industry will manage to survive.

Ah, harping on the distinction between a warning label on the phone and a warning label posted next to the phone. Cute.

Moreover, you once again ignore the point - do you actually think this is going to have a real impact on consumer choices? Is the information posted next to phones going to impact your cell phone usage? Do you think people are going to see these signs and decide to go back to land lines?

It's frivolous ****, on par with the vaccine-autism garbage.
 
I used to live next to a train and the electromagnetic radiation of the tracks increased my frequency of illness. I expect people to call that pseudoscientific, but science doesn't know everything and it knows very little about how different forms of energy affect the human body.

I wouldn't call that pseudoscientific, I'd call that stupid. First of all, we have all sorts of information on how different forms of energy affect the body. Also, on what basis do you believe that it was the "electromagnetic radiation" of the tracks that caused your increase in illness and not some other factor?
 
I wouldn't call that pseudoscientific, I'd call that stupid. First of all, we have all sorts of information on how different forms of energy affect the body. Also, on what basis do you believe that it was the "electromagnetic radiation" of the tracks that caused your increase in illness and not some other factor?

I'm very aware of my own body and outside sources are not relevant. I noticed when I lived next to train tracks that my health declined. When I was away from home my health improved, only if it was for a few days.

Calling it stupid is closed minded but oh well, your choice. I don't care what "other sources of information" have to say. Statistics don't override my individual experience.
 
I'm very aware of my own body and outside sources are not relevant. I noticed when I lived next to train tracks that my health declined. When I was away from home my health improved, only if it was for a few days.

Calling it stupid is closed minded but oh well, your choice. I don't care what "other sources of information" have to say. Statistics don't override my individual experience.

I'm not contesting that you got sick more, I'm contesting your assumption that it was the "electromagnetic energy" of the train tracks that caused it. Just because two things occured in the same time frame does not mean they are related.

You stated science has "very little" information on how different kinds of "energy" affect the human body. That's wrong. We have tons of information. I'm not talking about statistics here, I'm talking about physics. Seeing as how you have no physical capacity for even detecting electromagnetic energy, I think it's a pretty large leap for you to determine that such a thing is what caused your illness. Your refrigerator was exposing you to a stronger magnetic field than the train tracks were.

Edit: Assuming the train was the only variable that changed from your previous dwelling (it wasn't) I'd suppose that the sound from the trains was a far more likely stress that caused illness.
 
Last edited:
I'm not contesting that you got sick more, I'm contesting your assumption that it was the "electromagnetic energy" of the train tracks that caused it. Just because two things occured in the same time frame does not mean they are related.

Seeing as how the trains in my city operate on electro magnetism, I'm assuming it was electromagnetic energy.

You stated science has "very little" information on how different kinds of "energy" affect the human body. That's wrong. We have tons of information. I'm not talking about statistics here, I'm talking about physics. Seeing as how you have no physical capacity for even detecting electromagnetic energy, I think it's a pretty large leap for you to determine that such a thing is what caused your illness. Your refrigerator was exposing you to a stronger magnetic field than the train tracks were.

Edit: Assuming the train was the only variable that changed from your previous dwelling (it wasn't) I'd suppose that the sound from the trains was a far more likely stress that caused illness.

I determined it through simple deduction.

I'm not sure what your attachment is to disproving my claim which, to me, is self-evident based on my experience. Maybe you feel that the ways in which you understand the world are being threatened or something, I don't really know. I can assure you, it wasn't accoustics. I'm a pretty sound sleeper. People who live near power lines can experience similar effects, if they are sensitive to it. Not everyone is though, so I can't make any sort of universal generalization.

I can only speak on behalf of myself.
 
You're confusing two things …

We can always count on you to distort and misrepresent the meanings of other members posts.

When the Board requires cell phone companies post emission levels along side the phones that are offered for sale that what's they mean.


Ah, harping on the distinction between a warning label on the phone and a warning label posted next to the phone. Cute.

Moreover, you once again ignore the point - do you actually think this is going to have a real impact on consumer choices? Is the information posted next to phones going to impact your cell phone usage? Do you think people are going to see these signs and decide to go back to land lines?

It's frivolous ****, on par with the vaccine-autism garbage.

Bull****. You just refuse to get it. It's not about not using cell phones, it's about buying the right cell phone. They're not all created equal. Consumers have the right to know.
 
Last edited:
Seeing as how the trains in my city operate on electro magnetism, I'm assuming it was electromagnetic energy.



I determined it through simple deduction.

I'm not sure what your attachment is to disproving my claim which, to me, is self-evident based on my experience. Maybe you feel that the ways in which you understand the world are being threatened or something, I don't really know. I can assure you, it wasn't accoustics. I'm a pretty sound sleeper. People who live near power lines can experience similar effects, if they are sensitive to it. Not everyone is though, so I can't make any sort of universal generalization.

I can only speak on behalf of myself.

... it's a debate forum. Arguing is what we do here :)

Edit: Plus I'm a science geek and people posting things that are in direct contradiction of the laws of physics makes me giggle.

Edit 2: And what sort of train are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Bull****. You just refuse to get it. It's not about not using cell phones, it's about buying the right cell phone. They're not all created equal. Consumers have the right to know.

and the information is available for those who seek it. It was there for the reading before SF did anything.
 
Edit: Plus I'm a science geek and people posting things that are in direct contradiction of the laws of physics makes me giggle.

Yeah, because science knows everything and there are no phenomena that we don't know about. Typical arrogance.

Edit 2: And what sort of train are you talking about?

I don't feel like debating this with you anymore. This whole tangent is based on a side comment I made.
 
Back
Top Bottom