Phone manufacturers may soon be required to place radiation warning labels on their products

Phone manufacturers may soon be required to place radiation warning labels on their products
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced a new bill that concerns us, the users of mobile devices, as well as the manufacturers of those devices. The Cell Phone Right to Know Act, as it is called, would require manufacturers to place radiation warning labels on their phones, thus letting people know if they are purchasing a phone with relatively high, or low levels of radiation. While we can certainly live with our phones having one more label on them, we're sure that the industry won't be thrilled by the introduction of the bill, as the open presentation of such kind of information may drive potential buyers away from certain models.

However, this is not the full extent of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act. It would also create a new national research program that will be studying the effects of cell phones on health. Plus, it will require the Environmental Protection Agency to update its quite outdated SAR ratings (Specific Absorption Rate). All of this aims to let users know that while there isn't a proven link between cell phone radiation and brain cancer, there might be such.

We'd like to remind our readers that no conclusive statement can be made yet, as to whether or not cell phones have negative impact on human health. Research in this area is still ongoing and there's good amount of possibility that it may take at least a few years until such a conclusion can be made.

source: DennisKucinich via Cnet

FEATURED VIDEO

19 Comments

1. chemhaz

Posts: 161; Member since: May 04, 2012

Good new, iDiots can see how much their beloved device is causing them harm if this article is truehttp://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-iPhone-emits- three-time-the-radiation-as-the-Samsung-Galaxy-S-I II_id32498/comments/page/2?ratelimit=all&sort=thre aded

2. andro.

Posts: 1999; Member since: Sep 16, 2011

Agreed Apple will get their legal teams and 'political acquaintances' to fight this as stats made public will show the iphone in a very bad light again.

10. sgtdisturbed47

Posts: 969; Member since: Feb 02, 2012

We can all just wear tin foil hats.

3. dragonscourgex

Posts: 307; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

A waste of government money and time.

7. dl20155

Posts: 1; Member since: Aug 07, 2012

It doesn't your money and time but government's.

12. phonemonkey

Posts: 168; Member since: Feb 13, 2012

could you make this statement make more sense? Thank you

17. corps1089

Posts: 492; Member since: Jan 20, 2010

I think dl20155 was trying to say it isn't your money and time, its the government's. Time is money, so its just a matter of money. Of course, dl20155 would be flat out wrong since by definition the government's money is our money. The goverment has its sanction from the people and its money from the people, and the 100% obligation to not waste either where the people do not wish it.

18. dragonscourgex

Posts: 307; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

Sadly people like you draw breath. Yes it is my money and time. It is our tax dollars that they are spending. The government of the USA is suppose to be "for the people, by the people" The people in office are "suppose" to be a voice of the people. They are "suppose" to listen to what their districts are saying and vote accordingly. So, like I said, it is a waste of money and time. Even thou you and the 8 others do not agree with me.

4. droidnator

Posts: 93; Member since: Mar 10, 2011

I for one applaud the idea. Public health should be a priority, and mobiles are a big part of our life nowadays. We should know the truth - are they bad for us or not, conclusively.

5. superguy

Posts: 465; Member since: Jul 15, 2011

A couple things. All eletromagnetic energy are radiation of some sort. So radio, microwaves, visible light, etc are all type s of radiation. There are also two types of radiation - ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation like x-rays can cause cancer. Non-ionizing radiation doesn't. Also, once you get into UV and above, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it can be (i.e. X-rays are considered to be more dangerous than UV rays). One of my physics professors laughed at the notion that these were dangerous. He stated that the average person puts out enough infrared energy to power a 900W infrared light bulb constantly. It's ridiculous to be worried about a

6. ghostkilla1388

Posts: 50; Member since: Jun 11, 2012

A person can emit infrared energy? also to power a light bulb... lol you mad electric companies lol Ill have to read up on that sounds very interesting superguy!

19. Saving_your_Butt

Posts: 2; Member since: Nov 04, 2011

ummm, yes people do emit infared energy. In fact, you don't have to do anything to do it too! just sit on your butt and you emit it. Infared imagery shows contrast in heat being emitted by an object or living being.

14. Scott_H

Posts: 167; Member since: Oct 28, 2011

Almost any physics professor would laugh at the idea that cell radiation could harm you - non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can't cause cancer, period. It's conceivable that the heat emitted could have some effect, but this is true for any device that gives off heat.

8. shuaibhere

Posts: 1986; Member since: Jul 07, 2012

if this is the case apple will be the bug loser..

9. shuaibhere

Posts: 1986; Member since: Jul 07, 2012

if this is the case.....apple will be the big loser..

11. Stoli89

Posts: 333; Member since: Jun 28, 2010

Except of course in Japan, where your handset rad level will remain below the country's post-Fukushima background radiation levels.

13. phonemonkey

Posts: 168; Member since: Feb 13, 2012

I have family that lives in japan and quite frankly i find this offensive Thank you for being more considerate and less indifferent.

15. corps1089

Posts: 492; Member since: Jan 20, 2010

We'd like to remind our readers that no conclusive statement can be made yet, as to whether or not congressional membership has negative impact on human stupidity. Research in this area is still ongoing and there's good amount of possibility that it may take at least a few billion years until such a conclusion can be made.

16. corps1089

Posts: 492; Member since: Jan 20, 2010

Careful Ray S., your choice of words could have been better in that last sentance: "there's good amount of possibility that" is just poor grammer, and, "until such a conclusion can be made" could be interpreted as meaning: until we reach the foregone conclusion...

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.