Maine Wants Mobile Phones To Carry A Cancer Warning... Despite Lack Of Evidence; [Updated: SF Too]
from the yeah-that'll-help dept
There have been ongoing arguments and conflicting studies for years over whether or not mobile phones can cause cancer. However, we had thought that the general scientific consensus was that mobile phones have such weak radiation that it is extremely unlikely to have any meaningful impact on causing cancer. Yet, that doesn't stop the worries that have long been associated with (almost always unscientific folks) when it comes to wireless signals. The latest such situation involves a politician in Maine pushing for a law that would put cancer warning labels on mobile phones.But here's the thing: even if these warnings were put on phones, what would it do? Would people really stop using their mobile phones or make any behavioral adjustment just because of these labels? There might be a few people, but I'd imagine that those who already are sure that mobile phones cause cancer have already acted accordingly. Update: And... just like that, comes the news that San Francisco is considering the same thing.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cancer warning, maine, mobile phones, radiation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nothing gets voters to the polls like a good scare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This blog should carry a cancer warning... Despite lack of evidence.
Hopefully, when these special interests will lobby for the warning messages to be COMPLETELY CAPITALIZED. Also, when they are invited to explain their position on the local Maine TV affairs news show, "Maine Today", they should talk *REAL LOUD* so everyone will make sure they're super serious this time.
You have to understand that talking REAL LOUD is key to the legislation's success, because if they don't, people will think it's less serious than other Maine news stories, like the more local problem of disappearing lobster traps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets better
"S .F. May Require Warnings About Cellphone Radiation
...“Do you wait until you have proof of cause and effect, or do you look for indications from reputable scientific sources?” said Debbie Raphael, toxics reduction program manager for the department."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It gets better
and find a way to tax people for it while you are at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A cure for stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A cure for stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stick tape x-ray radiation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGzRvYU0e3Q
Once I was doing spectro chomatography in aluminum samples and I could feel my filings pushing against my teeth. There were no warnings about radiation anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and its being pushed/has been pushed into the special emergency session. fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No imagination
The placing of a warning label is the first step by government to create liablity for the phone companies, while at the same time allowing the politicians to crow that they have done things to protect their constituents. It's a political win-win.
Remind me again how many cell phones are manufactured in Maine, I suspect the number is zero. It's perfect, you get all the political benefits, and none of the negatives of hurting local industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WARNING: This person carries a high risk of lying, cheating, committing fraud, and stealing from the community.
Using their logic, there is no hard and fast evidence, but just to be safe, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, nothing makes a board certifies surgeon immune from magical thinking, but his opinion, which is all that it is at this point, is definately interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
San Francisco, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we are talking about here is the FDA saying it ain't so.
And we all know that the FDA is honest and would never allow a dangerous product to enter the consumer market right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that being said, my father could be able to do that. he was a real estate agent, and when the original mobile phones came out (so it was a number of years ago now) he was constantly on them and ended up with cancerous tumours in his ears. he was told by the doctors that it was most likely caused by the phone usage, and that there has been many cases like his but, due to there being no scientific proof, that its not conclusive. this lends to the idea about how many times a coincidence needs to occur before it actually shows up as a pattern.
so yeah, adding warning labels to mobile phones will not actually do anything apart from giving liability. it surely hasnt stopped people from smoking, and it wont stop people from using phones either.
tl;dr
-warning labels gives liabilities (as stated by someone else)
-how many suggested cases of coincidental cancer does it take be its a pattern?
-labels havent stopped smoking
-tobacco had conflicting studies as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Yeah, yeah, I ended a sentence with a preposition--what of it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG
But Really..
I think just about everything is deadly now, they dont really test things long enough. How long have cell phones really been around, not even for one life span.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG
this is exactly why i dont put much faith in the subject of cell phone caused cancers. they have been commercially available since the 80's. thats roughly 30 years. brain tumors as a general rule dont take 30 years to start causing enough problems to be noticed.
and with cell phones commercially available to even the poorest of people who generally have the worst health care, these problems would have been found before and would be easy to find now.
if a link isnt there, then it isnt there. doesnt mean dont look for one, doesnt mean that they wont find one down the road if they do keep looking. but it does mean that trying to use these scare tactics *NOW* is nothing more than a political boondoggle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selection Bias
One study into tumours among cell phone users found an increase in tumours on the same side of the head where they held the phone, and a decrease on the opposite side of the head.
How to explain this? The only explanation was bias in the reports themselves, that people were less likely to mention tumours on the “wrong” side of the head. If you want evidence that the radiation does not increase your risk of cancer, this is as clear as you’re going to get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link between cancer and cellphones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]