* Tread safely in cellular and in life
There’s been pooh-poohing and controversy over the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ approval of a bill proposing that retailers clearly display the levels of radiation, or the specific absorption rate, emitted by each cell phone they sell.
Reaction in cyberspace has ranged from implications that San Franciscans have way too much time on their hands to prophetic reminders that quite often, the cumulative effects of all kinds of exposures on human health don’t reveal themselves for decades.
San Francisco approves cell phone radiation law
At issue, of course, is the long-debated question about whether cell phones cause cancer of the brain or other areas of the body with high levels of exposure. No one really knows for sure. Why wouldn’t it be prudent, then, to err on the safe side by providing buyers with more information on which to base their decisions?
Yes, but we leave it up to the FCC to set limits on emissions, and products must be FCC-certified to be on the market. That level of checks and balances should be adequate (emphasis on “should”). Now, whether the FCC needs to set higher standards or revisit the issue or is doing an adequate job are all fair questions. But, for now, the FCC is what we’ve got.
Who’s to say whether a phone with a higher or lower SAR than another is necessarily more or less safe? We just don’t know enough. It seems that the industry has loudly said, “We don’t know.” Without more information, what’s the implication of a particular SAR rating other than to make an ambiguous threat?
Cell phones and thousands of other things we consume day in, day out are candidates to be our undoing in the end. Having to label everything in existence with a complete rundown of its potential positive and negative impacts on human life is just plain overkill.
It’s a cliché, but the best risk mitigation advice is “moderation.” Try not to talk four hours a day on your cell phone, even if your battery is willing. But if you must, use a low-power headset.
