http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/ Engadget Comments for CTIA sues San Francisco over cellphone radiation law http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Sheesh. ]]>Jul 24th 2010 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
lol look at blackberry....]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
****reposting the second time...please don't delete posts Engadge!]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 6:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
I wonder where Apple is in all that?]]>Jul 24th 2010 6:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 6:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
of course its not include iphone4. Anything that can't make any call, will not radiate your brain. ]]>Jul 24th 2010 9:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 1:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/The SAR ratings for pretty much all recent phones are listed on Cnet, http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-16.html
On the list, the iPhone 4 SAR is kind of high, at least noticeably higher than the 3Gs.
But of course, PONG research has a proven case for the iPhone that reduces the radiation. One of the funniest reviews I saw was when a 'professional' tech site/blog starting railing against the Pong research case for radiation reduction as if it was a gimmick that didn't do crap, and the article rambles on and on about it not being worth anything, and then like 24 hours later, while the whole article is still available to read there's a small update at the bottom of the article that apologizes and fully acknowledges after testing that the radiation levels do in fact drop with the Pong research case. Only problem is, they're slow to production with other phone cases. They still have no android phone cases.]]>Jul 25th 2010 1:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 2:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1452/72497380.png]]>Jul 25th 2010 3:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
A lot of people think "radiation" = bad. If you lived in a world without radiation, you would be literally blind. Because that's how sight works. Radiation, microwave, radio frequency, xray, light, and gamma rays are all the same damned thing: electromagnetic radiation. Only radiation above a very specific frequency is harmful because it can ionize and thus split DNA. CELL RADIATION DOES NOT DO THIS. The most it can do is have a very very mild warming effect.

The sun actually does emit ionizing radiation. It is far more dangerous to you than your cell phone, yet if you lived without the sun you would have vitamin D deficiency and be quite bad off.]]>Jul 25th 2010 2:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 8:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 3:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I thought maybe it had to do with how much signal the phone could get. It didn't make any sense to me why one Blackberry would be among the worst and another would be among the best.

Same with the iPhone. The 3G had much worse radiation than the original, but the 3GS is better than both. The iPhone 4 is between the 3G and 3GS.

You would think that if it were possible for manufacturers to make phones with the lowest radiation without hindering something else, then all of them would do it ... whether or not the radiation actually does anything ... just to be on the safe side.]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
Dang you beat me to the "first time the BB Storm is on a best of list" joke]]>Jul 24th 2010 7:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 6:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 4:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
I'd try to buy the phones with the high signal stickers, like the Pixi and Moto 9. ;)]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/that's how they should have marketed the pixi. A skull and cross-bones, call it ''tumor'' people would be in lines so long it would put iphone to shame. Lol thank you dennis leary]]>Jul 24th 2010 8:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 1:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
I didn't read the complaint, but from the graph ... it could be due to the fact that it says "Best Phones" and "Worst Phones."

Whatever. I just pick low radiation phones just to be safe because I usually have it in my pocket next to my junk. I want kids in the future. ;)]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
The thing is, non ionizing radiation doesn't cause health problems.]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
I actually agree with you... and this is NOT a bad thing at all. Those that are complaining or against radiation disclosure want people, as a whole, to live in ignorance.

As far as "no credible proof being shown... any test can be modified to give any desire result. Does anyone, in their right mind, honestly think a test will ever be revealed showing positive proof of the damaging effects of long term cell phone exposure? There is way too much money involved. Any lab that tries to reveal this would be instantly shut down or will lose any grants or funding they may receive...]]>Jul 24th 2010 8:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
A lot of people think "radiation" = bad. If you lived in a world without radiation, you would be literally blind. Because that's how sight works. Radiation, microwave, radio frequency, xray, light, and gamma rays are all the same damned thing: electromagnetic radiation. Only radiations above a very specific frequency are harmful because they can ionize and thus split DNA. CELL RADIATION DOES NOT DO THIS. The most they can do is have a very very mild warming effect.

The sun actually does emit ionizing radiation. If San Francisco could, they would put a big fucking warning sticker on the sun and then promptly ban it.]]>Jul 25th 2010 2:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 10:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Banning the sun? Banning cell towers? Did you not read this part of my comment?

"It's not like you're being forced to buy a low radiation phone."

NO ONE IS BANNING ANYTHING. They're just showing you how much radiation each phone emits.

You whine about nanny state government but then you whine about knowing more information. Maybe I, as a consumer, don't want a "warming effect" on my brain at all; it's nice to have that information there so that I can actually make that choice. A 3000 calorie meal would probably, at worst, give me indigestion, but isn't it still a good idea to have the information there so I can take it into consideration when I make a decision?

Slap a disclaimer on the info that says "high radiation has not been proven to cause cancer" or something like that to appease the "nanny companies" and let it be. Making this information available is causing no harm.]]>Jul 26th 2010 4:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
Yeah, microwaves are non ionizing, but i guess you'll survive in an industrial microwave only for seconds.
The problem is that really nobody today can tell us, what longtime-effects the radiation of cellphones may have on our brain, because you know our brain is build of protein which is somewhat uncomfortable with higher temperatures. Also most phones (or W-Lan accesspoints etc.) can emit much more radiation to our brain in special circumstances (weak signal) and because of their pulsing operation.]]>Jul 26th 2010 2:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
Could these microwaves heat deep tissue causing a chemical or structural change? It is not impossible, but since we are talking about intensities on the order of a watt the temperature change would be minute. And if this was true, don't go outside, sleep under blankets, get a fever, work out, or anything else that may heat your tissue.

PS: The sun emits radiation at this frequency with a similar intensity(about a quarter of a watt/m2)]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
Radio signals have been around a lot longer than the past century. The Sun emits radio waves.

I think the concern is because this form of frequency is closer to microwave frequency (which is also non-ionizing) than TV/radio frequency waves. Even though microwaves haven't been proven to cause cancer either ... the microwave oven makes people want to stay away when it's on.]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
Studies have already been done that show being near a cell tower isn't dangerous, why would cell phones, that use the same *exact* wavelength chunk but use much less of it be dangerous at all.

This is totally misleading and will only serve to benefit the people in this world that refuse to believe in science.]]>Jul 24th 2010 5:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/
I'm just saying we must be aware of possible bad effects on our health, that's all.]]>Jul 24th 2010 11:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 25th 2010 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/24/ctia-sues-san-francisco-over-cellphone-radiation-law/Jul 24th 2010 5:16PM