Raise awareness of environmental health issues in order to better protect our children and future generations.

11 July 2018

Should Cell Phone Providers Warn Customers of Health Risks?

THIS IS NO "FALSE ALARM" ! as Dr. Nathaniel DeNicola and others would lead us to believe. The dangers of exposing ourselves to microwave radiation day in and day out are very real and precautions regarding use can be taken to reduce exposure. As Dr. Oleg Gregoriev, Chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says, we should "put a warning sticker on each [cell] phone, like a pack of cigarettes".

Should cell phone providers warn customers of health risks? Berkeley says yes
BY LYNNE PEEPLES, FairWarning.org,
11 July 2018

The scientific community has not reached consensus on
the risks of cellular phone use, but the California health
department said research suggests long-term extensive
use may affect health.
Few people know that there are federal safety limits for exposure to the weak radiation emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices. There often is language about this embedded right in our phones, but finding it requires knowing where to look, wading through several steps and then making sense of the technical jargon.

Concerned about the lack of public awareness, Berkeley, California passed a law in 2015 calling for cellphone stores to post warning signs. The signs caution that if you carry a phone in a pocket or tucked into a bra when the device is on, “you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure’’ to radio-frequency radiation.

That advisory is intended to sum up the information the Federal Communications Commission requires cellphone manufacturers to disclose in phones, owner manuals or packaging material, and it’s milder than warnings given by such organizations as the American Academy of Pediatrics. But eager to squelch its aversion to unfavorable information, the wireless industry — led by the trade group CTIA —has waged a high-powered legal battle to take down the signs. In court filings, CTIA has called the advisory “inflammatory” and has argued that the Berkeley law violates retailers' First Amendment rights by compelling them to disclose misleading information.

Berkeley won the first round in federal district court, and then again in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But it suffered a setback on June 28 when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the appeals court ruling, and sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration.

Continue reading:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.