• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

San Francisco cellphone warning law fails science, says judge

T

tydas

Golden Member
"San Francisco cellphone warning law fails science, says judge
Even the watered-down version couldn't pass muster. San Francisco's ordinance requiring retail outlets to inform consumers about the (alleged) effects of cellphone radiation has been blocked by a federal judge."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...hone-warning-law-fails-science-says-judge.ars

From what I can tell, report after report shows no link to cell phones causing cancer but like so many other anti-science movements people just won't give up thier beleifs...
 
xBiffx said:
You mean like man made global warming? Shenanigans, the foundation of the democrat party.
Click to expand...

xBiffX on the attack! So...you pick and choose what science says huh? the GOP is the party of anti-science as evidenced by the presidential primary (except for Huntsman)
 
tydas said:
xBiffX on the attack! So...you pick and choose what science says huh? the GOP is the party of anti-science as evidenced by the presidential primary (except for Huntsman)
Click to expand...

Both parties have their anti-science wings. Some Republicans tend to have more global warming skeptics and anti-evolution politicians. Some Democrats have a queer aversion to sustainable energy (nuclear power and Yucca Mountain), vaccinations and modern agriculture (GMOs, non-organic farming, etc).
 
Schadenfroh said:
Both parties have their anti-science wings. Some Republicans tend to have more global warming skeptics and anti-evolution politicians. Some Democrats have a queer aversion to sustainable energy (nuclear power and Yucca Mountain), vaccinations and modern agriculture (GMOs, non-organic farming, etc).
Click to expand...

Quite true, the whole CAM movement has a lot of democratic sponsors...however I'll give the win to the GOP since they are so much more influenced by religion and attacking well establsihed principles like evolution.
 
tydas said:
Quite true, the whole CAM movement has a lot of democratic sponsors...however I'll give the win to the GOP since they are so much more influenced by religion and attacking well establsihed principles like evolution.
Click to expand...

I'll never understand religious aversion to evolution.
 
Schadenfroh said:
Both parties have their anti-science wings. Some Republicans tend to have more global warming skeptics and anti-evolution politicians. Some Democrats have a queer aversion to sustainable energy (nuclear power and Yucca Mountain), vaccinations and modern agriculture (GMOs, non-organic farming, etc).
Click to expand...

I won't debate the other two, but anti-vaxx crosses party lines, and so far the GOP is the only party to field a POTUS candidate that backs it, so the inclusion of that one is actually ironic.
 
tydas said:
From what I can tell, report after report shows no link to cell phones causing cancer but like so many other anti-science movements people just won't give up thier beleifs...
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there is some evidence to back it up:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

...

Results from the largest international study on cell phones and cancer was released in 2010. It showed participants in the study who used a cell phone for 10 years or more had doubled the rate of brain glioma, a type of tumor. To date, there have been no long-term studies on the effects of cell phone usage among children.

"Children's skulls and scalps are thinner. So the radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain of children and young adults. Their cells are at a dividing faster rate, so the impact of radiation can be much larger." said Black of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
In February, a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, revealed radiation emitted after just 50 minutes on a mobile phone increases the activity in brain cells. The effects of brain activity being artificially stimulated are still unknown.

Neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta says Tuesday's announcement, "dealt a blow to those who have long said, 'There is no possible mechanism for cell phones to cause cancer.' By classifying cell phones as a possible carcinogen, they also seem to be tacitly admitting a mechanism could exist."

Manufacturers of many popular cell phones already warn consumers to keep their device away from their body and medical experts say there other ways to minimize cell phone radiation.

The Apple iPhone 4 safety manual says users' radiation exposure should not exceed FCC guidelines: "When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body."

...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Whatever you want to say about the subject matter - I'm pretty sure this new "law" is primarily to protect businesses from the "fourth" arm of the government, trial lawyers. I don't see it persuading *anyone* to not buy a cell-phone or use it less often, nor do I believe anyone who crafted the law thinks so either.
 
Last edited:
tydas said:
"San Francisco cellphone warning law fails science, says judge
Even the watered-down version couldn't pass muster. San Francisco's ordinance requiring retail outlets to inform consumers about the (alleged) effects of cellphone radiation has been blocked by a federal judge."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...hone-warning-law-fails-science-says-judge.ars

From what I can tell, report after report shows no link to cell phones causing cancer but like so many other anti-science movements people just won't give up thier beleifs...
Click to expand...

Really!! Are these the findings of cellphone funded lackeys?? Been through this with the tobacco interests back in the 70's.
 
The trouble with this law is not that it is "unscientific" or anti-science. It's that unlike global warming or tobacco, for example, there is no scientific consensus. In fact, while some resaerch shows a link, the bulk of it shows no link. If every time a study or two showed a cancer link with something a warning has to be issued, virtually every product sold would have to come with a warning. It's mind boggling how many different things have been shown by one or two studies to be linked to cancer. Seriously, by the standard of "one or two studies show it," virtually everything causes cancer.
 
woolfe9999 said:
The trouble with this law is not that it is "unscientific" or anti-science. It's that unlike global warming or tobacco, for example, there is no scientific consensus. In fact, while some resaerch shows a link, the bulk of it shows no link. If every time a study or two showed a cancer link with something a warning has to be issued, virtually every product sold would have to come with a warning. It's mind boggling how many different things have been shown by one or two studies to be linked to cancer. Seriously, by the standard of "one or two studies show it," virtually everything causes cancer.
Click to expand...

Mustard is carcinogenic apparently.

The latest "big study" ranked cell phones as a 1.5 or so on a scale of 1-10 of cancerosity-ness. The only reason they didn't get a 1 was because the study couldn't conclude that they DIDN'T cause cancer, but it certainly didn't show that they DID. This puts cell phones in the same category as pickles for ability to cause cancer.

Not only that, but there's still no proposed mechanism for causing cancer from the radiation that comes off of them.
 
The same willingness to believe in fairytales that results in some people believing the Earth is only a few thousand years old results in others believing that cell phones are carcinogenic and that a law like this must be passed.

Let's recognize the true root of the problem (lack of critical thinking and lack of healthy skepticism) and not get bogged down in minutia (politics and ideology).
 
Last edited:
silverpig said:
Mustard is carcinogenic apparently.

The latest "big study" ranked cell phones as a 1.5 or so on a scale of 1-10 of cancerosity-ness. The only reason they didn't get a 1 was because the study couldn't conclude that they DIDN'T cause cancer, but it certainly didn't show that they DID. This puts cell phones in the same category as pickles for ability to cause cancer.

Not only that, but there's still no proposed mechanism for causing cancer from the radiation that comes off of them.
Click to expand...
Damn it, I have to stop eating pickles?!? Nooooo!
 
zsdersw said:
The same willingness to believe in fairytales that results in some people believing the Earth is only a few thousand years old results in others believing that cell phones are carcinogenic and that a law like this must be passed.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your overall point, this analogy is strained and exaggerated.
 
tydas said:
"San Francisco cellphone warning law fails science, says judge
Even the watered-down version couldn't pass muster. San Francisco's ordinance requiring retail outlets to inform consumers about the (alleged) effects of cellphone radiation has been blocked by a federal judge."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...hone-warning-law-fails-science-says-judge.ars

From what I can tell, report after report shows no link to cell phones causing cancer but like so many other anti-science movements people just won't give up thier beleifs...
Click to expand...

No big deal

It was just a warning anyway

Too much of anything is normally not a good thing.

That's a label you could put on everything.
 
JS80 said:
There isn't one. It's a correlation myth. It's about education levels. Educated persons of faith believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

It is true that statistically you are less likely to doubt evolution with more education, but when education is held constant, religiosity exerts a strong influence on acceptance, meaning it's no myth.

iue6sizpteow-po1bcyola.gif


As mentioned in the survey, previous Gallup research finds church attendance to be pretty constant across all education levels, thereby acting as a very useful control on education's effects.
 
Schadenfroh said:
Both parties have their anti-science wings. Some Republicans tend to have more global warming skeptics and anti-evolution politicians. Some Democrats have a queer aversion to sustainable energy (nuclear power and Yucca Mountain), vaccinations and modern agriculture (GMOs, non-organic farming, etc).
Click to expand...

I can somewhat understand the aversion to GMO foods. Genetic engineering is still a very young science. One little "whoopsie" or a mutation that you don't account for and your food supply is in trouble, or even dangerous.
 
zsdersw said:
The same willingness to believe in fairytales that results in some people believing the Earth is only a few thousand years old results in others believing that cell phones are carcinogenic and that a law like this must be passed.

Let's recognize the true root of the problem (lack of critical thinking and lack of healthy skepticism) and not get bogged down in minutia (politics and ideology).
Click to expand...
Long promoted by Hollywood, television, and corporations who hate intellectualism and critical thinking and those with the ability to question them and their motives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top