Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: Judge sides with CTIA on cell phone warnings
Duane Benson   10/31/2011 5:38:41 AM
NO RATINGS
It's always a big problem when science gets politicized. All of these things are pretty complex issues and we do have a choice to not use anything until definitive and unarguable science has classified that thing. In a modern world, that simply isn't realistic. We depend on technology for pretty much everything. Our federal regulatory agencies do miss quite a few things (some pretty big), but that's because we're all learning all of the time. For all of the misses, I think there are a lot more hits. On balance, we have a pretty safe modern world. Do cell phones increase the chances of developing cancer? It's hard to say with so much of the published information coming from people with an agenda. From the best that I can interpret out of the morass is that cancer death rates have been going down steadily for quite some time. If someday they are found to promote cancer, it will likely be a case of increasing your chances of getting certain types by a few percentage points. Given that minimal impact, how many people would be willing to give up their phones?

eembedded_janitor
User Rank
Rookie
re: Judge sides with CTIA on cell phone warnings
eembedded_janitor   10/31/2011 1:08:09 AM
NO RATINGS
I'm not that sure your examples are instructive. First off, all those mistakes you mention were expected to be benign and were only subject to rudimentary testing. RF has been thought to be potentially dangerous and has been through orders of magnitude more testing. Secondly, the testing levels required today far exceed those of twenty+ years ago. Thirdly, DDT probably does not deserve all the bad rap it got. DDT is still used in many parts of the world - primarily to combat malaria.

SylvieBarak
User Rank
Rookie
re: Judge sides with CTIA on cell phone warnings
SylvieBarak   10/29/2011 8:09:56 PM
NO RATINGS
By the way, this infographic is absolutely awesome... (of course it is... it's xkcd!) http://xkcd.com/radiation/

SylvieBarak
User Rank
Rookie
re: Judge sides with CTIA on cell phone warnings
SylvieBarak   10/29/2011 5:30:09 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, I think the warnings were alarmist. You get more radiation from flying on a plane, and planes aren't required to paint big warning signs on them...

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
re: Judge sides with CTIA on cell phone warnings
prabhakar_deosthali   10/29/2011 9:03:40 AM
NO RATINGS
The judge has done a good thing to keep away those institutions trying to create undue fear among the mobile users about the potential( may not be supported by the adequate research) health hazards. many a times it has been the that one reasearch contradicts other and the consumer is left confused .

kdboyce
User Rank
Rookie
re: Judge sides with CTIA on cell phone warnings
kdboyce   10/29/2011 5:47:36 AM
NO RATINGS
In order to gain an FCC license, a phone's maximum Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) level must be less than 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). In 2000, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) ordered cell-phone manufacturers to place labels on phones disclosing radiation levels. In actual fact, that information is obtainable thru the phones FCC ID Number. To find the specific absorption rate of your phone, you can visit this FCC Web site: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ Your phone should have an FCC identification (FCC ID) code. Type that code in the correct fields and the site should offer information on your device. I tried it on my own phone, and the SAR report can be found under the DETAIL button on the search results. There was a Certificate of Compliance (SAR Evaluation) PDF file published by an independent 3rd party test house. My phone was listed as follows: 0.276 W/kg Cellular GSM Head SAR 0.299 W/kg Cellular GSM GPRS Body SAR 0.178 W/kg PCS GSM Head SAR 0.331 W/kg PCS GSM GPRS Body SAR 0.005 W/kg Bluetooth Body SAR The highest SAR number was about 1/5 the FCC limit. This FCC website link should be in any pamphlet, if one were published. Also, any such pamphlet should stress that multiple studies have not conclusively shown a connection between cell phone radiation and any specific cell damage. All of the above information does not mean I am in favor of what the City of San Francisco is doing. I am not in favor of it. I think they have bigger problems to solve. But if they want to provide factual information about SAR, instead of scare tactics, then do it right.

<<   <   Page 2 / 2


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Oh, No! My Antique Analog Meter Has Twitched Its Last
Max Maxfield
6 comments
Well, life is certainly full of ups and downs, isn't it? When it comes to the antique analog meters I'm using in a number of my hobby projects, things appeared to be going swimmingly well, ...

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
20 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
15 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
46 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)