CTIA Turns to the Constitution to Fight SF's SAR Law
Any radiation emitting device should be labeled as such.
Fact: Radiation has a cumulative effect on the body.
Ask doctors why they opt for the pat down instead of the body scanners at airports.
Ask doctors why they opt for the pat down instead of the body scanners at airports.
They are, but no one is making Best Buy place a fact sheet next to every microwave, television, play station, ipod, stereo and computer it cells. Why are they singling out cell phones? San Francisco is out of line on this one.
teh.Cheeto said:
what is it inside the phones that creates the radiation?
Is this a serious question?
Modulation of electromagnetic radiation is the central operating principle of wireless communications.
AJ
...
Outrageous, but interesting
This is one of those arguments that is utterly outrageous but that could have huge implications. I mean, if this would somehow hold water with the courts, all sorts of things would be affected, including:
Nutritional information on food
Warning labels on cigarettes
Drug monographs included when you get a prescription filled
Health ratings posted in restaurants
Ingredients in foods
Fuel efficiency ratings of vehicles
Odds are, this lawsuit will be laughed out of court, but if it isn't, it could be huge.
Nutritional information on food
Warning labels on cigarettes
Drug monographs included when you get a prescription filled
Health ratings posted in restaurants
Ingredients in foods
Fuel efficiency ratings of vehicles
Odds are, this lawsuit will be laughed out of court, but if it isn't, it could be huge.
Wow.
This is an even more whacked-out interpretation of Constitutional law than some of the stuff I've read here from the anti-net neutrality people. By this reasoning, it's unconstitutional to force drug companies to list ingredients on a medicine's packaging. Absolutely ridiculous.
It's all about interpretation. Taken literally, the first amendment does not permit any of those things, however the government has been allowed to pass "reasonable regulations" by the court system. CTIA is suing because they claim San Francisco's pol...
(continues)
(continues)
It's like these carbon footprint scores on cars now and like the Surgeon general's warning on cigarettes. I don't know of a single instance where someone bought one phone over the other due to the lower SAR rating, which are available by the way. CTIA...
(continues)
(continues)
...
i agree, but i'm not sure where i stand. i think the SF SAR law is just as ridiculous as the constitutional argument the CTIA is making. The SAR ratings of phones will just confuse consumers. A phone with a lower SAR rating isn't necessarily any safer...
(continues)
(continues)
It isn't just the number, it is whether the number has been proven to mean anything.
The relevance of aspirin in a tablet is established as fact. It matters how much aspirin is in a tablet for both effect and safety.
The SAR has no established ...
(continues)
The relevance of aspirin in a tablet is established as fact. It matters how much aspirin is in a tablet for both effect and safety.
The SAR has no established ...
(continues)
...
I agree. What's this world coming to? The stupid stuff people cry about these days. Same thing with lawsuits. I understand if you patent something you want your rights but some of these lawsuits are very stupid. Same thing with the "separation of...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Crazy
I think if they want to throw such a big fit over it just ask the manufacturer of the specific phone...
