City of San Francisco wants consumers warned about potential cell phone risks

City of San Francisco wants consumers warned about potential cell phone risks
The city of San Francisco is closing in on making its revised Cell Phone Right-to-Know Ordinance, law. The Ordinance, if it makes it past its last legislative stop, will require a store to prominently display a poster by the city’s Department of the Environment that would explain how energy waves emitted from cell phones can be absorbed by a person's head and body. The poster will show handset users how to lower their exposure to these energy waves. Retailers would also have to pass out a fact sheet to customers who ask for one.

Lately, the discussion about whether or not cell phones cause cancer has been swinging back and forth like a pendulum. As we reported, the latest word is that the latest batch of evidence refutes the cell phone-cancer connection. With this in mind, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is supposed to vote on the Ordinance this Tuesday. If it passes, it goes to the Mayor's office for his John Hancock.

If this becomes law in San Francisco, as is likely, we would expect to see other major cities move quickly to pass similar measures while the iron is hot. We would also expect to see the handset manufacturers start a counterattack. While so far, all of the rumors of a possible cancer link have not stopped smartphone users from parting with their loved one (meaning their phone), getting warned with a scary poster in your face every time you walk into a Verizon or AT&T, or Best Buy Mobile is bound to wear down some people. While no business is as hot as the smartphone business is these days, losing customers to a health scare is generally not a profitable way to conduct a business.

source: CNN

FEATURED VIDEO

18 Comments

1. Leyjee

Posts: 47; Member since: Feb 25, 2011

meh. We'll see in 20 years I guess...

2. twenti7

Posts: 152; Member since: Jul 09, 2011

"If this becomes law in San Francisco, as is likely, we would expect to see other major cities move quickly to pass similar measures while the iron is hot." Not necessarily. San Francisco recently tried to ban toys in kids' meals in fast-food resturaunts, along with several other crazy things that no other city would ever think to pass. If the research continues to point to cell phones being harmless, I don't see any other cities adopting anything like this.

3. biscutbob

Posts: 82; Member since: Jul 08, 2011

Hahaha California is so funny always different with the laws.

4. iHateCrapple

Posts: 734; Member since: Feb 12, 2010

Can we say "Nanny State"? Pathetic

13. Goldeneye

Posts: 419; Member since: Jan 22, 2011

Or a leader State depending if you like Cali or not, remember what State banned cell phone use while driving first? then the rest of States have been following just an example.

16. iHateCrapple

Posts: 734; Member since: Feb 12, 2010

Man, I hope not...

5. bboeckman unregistered

I love that we are making laws on what we "think" is possible now... There is still no concrete facts saying that cell phones are harmful. Do we need to pass out fliers and have signs up at baseball games and car dealerships? How about every curb or set of stairs? These are the same people who added a warning label on the side of the Soy milk carton saying, "WARNING: Contains Soy." I mean really? WTF?! Soy in Soy Milk?!

6. Pings

Posts: 304; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

Off topic: Soy Milk is not healthy. Any processed soy really, and almost all of soy you buy in processed.

7. rican

Posts: 132; Member since: Jul 02, 2011

Sensitive ass people these days, everything causes cancer and is harmful to you these days, stop living in fear and just live.

8. superguy

Posts: 453; Member since: Jul 15, 2011

I remember my physics professor laughing about stupid stuff like this. We emit higher frequency light than this at much greater intensity than any cell phone. As my prof put it, the average adult is the equivalent of a 900W infrared bulb. In theory, the average person is much more dangerous to one's self than any cell phone would ever be due to the intensity and frequency of the light. I'd like to see San Fran legislate warnings for that. :D

9. Scribed3d

Posts: 29; Member since: Aug 08, 2010

Folks.... stop. This has nothing to do with San Francisco being "overly sensitive" or the like. This has to do with the one universal common thread in all of politics: Money. First, they are milking lobbyist money from cell carriers and manufactures like crazy as they try to "prevent" this action. Second, when it does pass, who do you think the retail stores selling cell phones will have to pay to be certified in compliance with the new guidelines? Oh, the City! Then there is the official legal documentation. while a third party vendor will be the one to print and distribute this, who do you think will be paid consulting and authorization fees? The City! Lastly, while this isn't stated in the filings, I bet somehow, someway this will come into play... zoning. I can almost guarantee there will be zoning restrictions involved down the line. When there are zoning issues in play, even more lobby money comes down to "suggest" the small changes necessary for the store chain/cell carrier to be as best positioned as possible. Its simple really. It always comes back to money.

10. rican

Posts: 132; Member since: Jul 02, 2011

didnt even think about it in a business sense i was thinking in a political sense. money is root of all evil aint it.

14. 530gemini

Posts: 2198; Member since: Sep 09, 2010

Money is not the root of all evil. It's THE LOVE of money that's the root of all evil. Goodness rican, even your quotes are incorrect, lol.

18. rican

Posts: 132; Member since: Jul 02, 2011

lol give me a break english is my second language

11. luis_lopez_351

Posts: 951; Member since: Nov 18, 2010

"Department of the Environment that would explain how energy waves emitted from cell phones can be absorbed by a person's head and body" ;) you dont say??? hmmmm....

12. sgogeta4

Posts: 394; Member since: Feb 02, 2011

Maybe they should warn people more about the effects of going outside... Skin cancer is much more prevalent and definitely known to be caused by the UV radiation emitted from the sun. If they're going to warn people about something that might-possibly-cause cancer sometime-possibly-in-the-future, at least be consistent and include things that are known to be dangerous...

15. 530gemini

Posts: 2198; Member since: Sep 09, 2010

They won't. They're not able to charge the sun fees for emitting sunlight.

17. OhYeahMaaaaan unregistered

Are they going to put warnings on Salt? Could cause high BP. What about red meat or shrimp for deadly fat and cholesterol levels? Ohhhh noooo Government please protect us! What would we do without you!!!

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.