|
Cell Phone Radiation | San
Francisco Passes Cell Phone Radiation Law, But What’s The
Risk?
Cell Tower
Life Bluetube Headsets
Cell Phone Towers Health Effects
EM Field Meter
Cell Phone Sensitivity
August 8, 2011
(CNN) — On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
passed a new ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to
display and distribute a state-produced fact sheet that
explains radio frequency emissions from cell phones and how
consumers can minimize their exposure.
This ordinance amends the city’s controversial Cell Phone
Right to Know Act , a similar but more cumbersome law passed
last year that required cell phone retailers to post and
distribute radiation information for every make and model of
cell phone they sell. That would have been a significant
challenge to retailers, given how many types of phones any
store sells and how quickly that inventory changes.
Implementation of the original law was scuttled after the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (the
lobbying arm of the wireless industry) sued the city. So far
it is unknown when the new law will take effect.
The possible health risk of cell phone radiation is a
hot-button topic for many people, and this controversy is
definitely not just about science. In fact, it’s probably
more about the perception of risk, rather than the level or
nature of risk.
What does the science say? Concerns resurfaced in May when
the World Health Organization classified electromagnetic
fields produced by mobile phones as “possibly carcinogenic
to humans” after analyzing the body of scientific research.
In that announcement, WHO stated:“A large number of studies
have been performed over the last two decades to assess
whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date,
no adverse health effects have been established as being
caused by mobile phone use. … While an increased risk of
brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of
mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over
time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. … WHO will
conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health
outcomes from radio frequency fields exposure by 2012.”
David Ropeik, an expert in understanding and communicating
about risk and author of the book “How Risky Is It,
Really?,” believes that while San Francisco’s cell phone
fact sheet requirement probably won’t hurt anything, it’s
unlikely to help the public understanding of this issue.
The problem, he notes, is that public fears about cell phone
radiation do not appear to be supported by the preponderance
of scientific research.
People should take the WHO announcement in context, he said.
“By definition, that organization is required to be
superprecautionary if there’s any possible hint that
something might be carcinogenic. Their default is that if
there’s any credible evidence whatsoever, even in just a few
studies, they’ll put something on their ‘possibly
carcinogenic’ list. Which only means, depending on the
rating they give it, ‘Let’s keep looking.’ That’s about as
high as this particular risk assessment has gotten so far.”
The new San Francisco requirement probably won’t hurt
anything directly, Ropeik said. But it does provide a tacit
sanction of cell phone radiation fears by a recognized
authority, an important social signal.
“It feeds a responsiveness to public fears that in the long
run can make us more afraid of our world than is actually
warranted. That hurts us both in the choices we make and in
stress we feel. Sanctioning fears that are not well founded
in evidence contributes to our sense that we live in a
worrying world.”
This is not to imply that people who voice concerns about
cell phone radiation are misguided. Ropeik encourages people
with such concerns to learn more about how science assesses
health risk.
“You don’t necessarily have to read through a lot of
scientific papers and journals,” he said. “You can use news
coverage as a guide — but probably not the headlines. Look
for articles with direct quotes from scientists or
scientific organizations. The first clue is in the language
they use when discussing risk. If you hear words like
‘possible,’ ‘more research is necessary,’ ‘hints,’ ‘clues,’
‘maybe,’ and ‘uncertainty’ — or if there are no clear
recommendations for people to do anything, there’s probably
less need for the average person to take action.”
“Also, keep in mind that any one study is just a brick in
the wall. The point is: How big is that wall? How many
bricks does it have, and how firmly are they cemented
together? More studies give you a fuller picture, and the
consistency of their results tells you how certain the
scientific evidence is.”
Scientists often use “hedge words” because they know it’s
unwise to put too much stock in the results of a single
study, or in mixed results from a group of related studies.
But Ropeik notes that there have been cases where scientists
have sounded a clear, early, public warning when warranted —
such as for cancer risks associated with hormone replacement
therapy .
Just be careful of putting too much faith in dire warnings
sounded by a single scientist (or team of scientists) about
a single study. This was the case in the widely publicized
but now-discredited research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that
connected vaccines to autism. It led many parents around the
world to stop vaccinating their children, something that has
demonstrably harmed public health, journalist Seth Mnookin
writes in his book “The Panic Virus.”
And it’s true that new science can contradict or invalidate
earlier research findings, as MedPage Today recently
reported. So it’s important to keep up with the current
state of science for any issues that concern you greatly —
and to especially listen for clear warnings, rather than
faint indications of possible correlations or risks.
“People deserve credit for being reasonably intelligent
about how they assess and respond to risk,” said Ropeik.
“Sure we make mistakes sometimes, but this time most
people’s response to this risk was proportional to the
warning. The warning was a weak one. Most people have not
stopped using their cell phones. They’re not putting a lead
sheet between themselves and their phones. And even the
media coverage included plenty of qualifications about the
risk potential. Behavior tells you a lot about how people
really take risk into account in their lives.”
Hamilton Victoria Australia
Bayswater, Victoria,
Caloundra, Queensland,
Springfield Missouri USA,
Malta, Valetta,
Laos, Vientiane,
Pakistan, Islamabad,
Cape Verde, Praia,
Guatemala, Guatemala City,
Benin, Porto-Novo,
http://www.emfnews.org/store |
