|
U.S. District Court Judge
William Alsup Delays San Francisco Cell Phone Radiation
Warning Law
Cell Tower
Life Bluetube Headsets
Cell Phone Towers Health Effects
EM Field Meter
Cell Phone Sensitivity
21st October 2011
A first-of its kind law that would require San Francisco
wireless phone retailers to post radiation warnings has been
delayed by a federal judge.
Moral Low Ground attended a hearing yesterday in San
Francisco at which U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup
asked to postpone implementation of the “Right to Know
Ordinance”, set to go into effect on October 25, which would
force wireless retailers to display posters, stickers and
provide handouts detailing possible dangers, including
cancer, of cell phone use. Deputy City Attorney Vince
Chhabria agreed to the delay.
CTIA- The Wireless Association, a Washington-based lobby
group that represents wireless manufacturers such as Apple,
Google and Nokia, is seeking to sink the San Francisco law,
calling the warnings, which show cell phones emitting red,
orange and yellow rings by the head and groin of users,
“alarmist,” “misleading” and “untrue.”
“The warnings will create uncertainty and fear and
discourage the use and purchase of wireless products and
services,” CTIA said in a statement.
Chhabria dismissed that assertion. “In this age of cell
phone ubiquity, it strains credulity to speculate (as CTIA
does) that the materials would cause consumers to forego
cell phones altogether,” his filing stated. “After all, the
materials inform people how to mitigate possible risks, so
why, armed with these tips, would people want to forego the
phones?”
Olga Milan-Howells, a concerned citizen who is backing the
city’s ordinance, is not part of any “Right-to-Know” group.
“But I have been a cell phone user for at least 10 years,
and as such I do have the right to know,” she told me,
disagreeing emphatically with the notion that people will
stop buying wireless products because of the warnings. “The
information will help me to take precautions such as using
old-fashioned ear phones to decrease the chances of getting
cancer or brain tumors,” she said. ”I would also use my land
line whenever I am at home.”
At yesterday’s hearing, CTIA attorney Andrew McBride
declared that “all phones are safe.” He argued that
requiring warning labels about possible health risks would
be akin to going to McDonald’s and seeing a warning poster
declaring that “eating at a fast-food restaurant is not
consistent with a healthy lifestyle.”
“The city is setting the agenda, and that’s not right,”
McBride asserted. “How many mothers are going to walk into a
store and say ‘I’m not going to buy a phone for my
13-year-old daughter because of these warnings?’”
CTIA attorneys argued that the San Francisco law also
violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech
rights because it forces wireless retailers to disseminate
the city’s opinion. “The city has basically taken over the
store to deliver its message,” McBride said. Chhabria
dismissed these First Amendment concerns. “Our regulation is
not triggered by speech, it is triggered by the sale of a
product,” he argued. “It is a disclosure regulation.”
The industry lobbyists also point to Federal Communications
Commission studies that concluded there is no scientific
evidence linking cell phone use with cancer.
“The city’s conclusion that FCC-compliant cell phones are
dangerous is well outside the scientific mainstream, highly
controversial and in conflict with the statements and orders
of the federal government,” a CTIA statement said.
But the city points to World Health Organization (WHO)
research that found cell phone usage can increase possible
cancer risk. The WHO lists cell phone use in the same
“carcinogenic risk” category as lead, engine exhaust and
chloroform. The European Environmental Agency says that more
studies are needed and that cell phones could be as big a
public health risk as smoking, asbestos and leaded gasoline.
“When you look at cancer development — particularly brain
cancer — it takes a long time to develop. I think it is a
good idea to give the public some sort of warning that
long-term exposure to radiation from your cell phone could
possibly cause cancer,” University of Washington researcher
Dr. Henry Lai, who has studied radiation for more than 30
years, told CNN.
Of particular concern are the effects of radiation on the
brains of children.
“Children’s skulls and scalps are thinner. So the radiation
can penetrate deeper into the brain of children and young
adults. Their cells are at a dividing faster rate, so the
impact of radiation can be much larger,” Dr. Keith Black,
chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los
Angeles, told CNN.
The subject of radiation’s effects on children came up
during yesterday’s court hearing, with Judge Alsup, who said
he knows a thing or two about radio frequencies, questioning
the scientific basis of children’s developing brains and
think skulls increasing cancer risk. Alsup was dismissive of
the WHO in a manner more reminiscent of a Texas Republican
who doesn’t believe in evolution than of an impartial judge.
“They’re just the WHO,” he remarked, drawing a murmur from
the public gallery. “Where to they get off contradicting the
FCC?” He seemed to be saying: “USA good… world bad.”
Still, when Alsup asked if Chhabria could cite “one case
where someone’s gotten cancer” from using a wireless device,
the city attorney could only reply that “it can’t be proven
either way.”
“You can’t prove that a single person in the history of the
universe has gotten cancer from a cell phone,” Alsup
declared. “Anything’s possible… It’s possible UFOs could
come down,” he added dismissively.
Yes, it is possible. But that’s another story…
Sudan, Khartoum
Jamaica, Kingston
Canada Ottawa Ontario
Zimbabwe, Hararesssss
Denver,Colorado
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Aurora, Colorado
Modesto, California
Wichita Kansas USA,
Al Khashfah, United Arab Emirates, Al Khashfah, UAE
http://www.emfnews.org/store |
