Joel Upchurch said:

It looks like San Francisco is piling on.

http://i.engadget.com/2009/12/24/san-francisco-considers-displaying-phone-radiation-levels-next-t/

Gee dad! All the other kids are doing it…

        Bruce said:

Also, I noticed you never covered the leak at Indian point: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html

Do you have any idea how annoying this off topic BS is?

        Bruce said:

Also, I noticed you never covered the leak at Indian point: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html

Why would I? I don’t cover everything that happens in the world and I’m not going to bother writing about something as trivial as a leak in a pipe from a secondary auxiliary system of a nuclear plant that is sometimes used to provide cooling, and which contains nothing even slightly radioactive and is not even mission-critical.

What the hell is next? A news report every time a nuke plant worker goes to Taco Bell for their lunch break and then comes back and plugs up the john in the men’s room?

        Bruce said:

Soo… exactly how is such a warning going to endanger anyone? I realize now that the studies don’t show evidence of this connection, and the ones that do, you guys claim are not good studies. Maybe that is true. But a simple label to make people aware of the possible dangers seems advisable. No one is talking about limiting cell phone use, just making people aware. I don’t see the problem.

By this logic we should put warning labels on everything that has not been “proven” to absolutely not cause cancer. This would include things such as paper cups, toothpicks, socket wrenches, dogs, cats, two-by-fours, Lincoln Logs, pencil sharpeners, wool socks and anything else that might possibly emit some as yet undiscovered radiation that kills people.

Seriously, though, I assume that if you think phones should be labeled, then you’d think the same of cordless phones, wifi routers, walkies-talkies, R/C cars, garage door openers and any of the other products that contain radio transmitters of any kind.

        Bruce said:

Soo… exactly how is such a warning going to endanger anyone? I realize now that the studies, so far, don’t show evidence of this connection, and the ones that do, you guys claim are not good studies. Maybe that is true. But a simple label to make people aware of the possible dangers seems advisable. No one is talking about limiting cell phone use, just making people aware. I don’t see the problem.l

The problem is that warning labels presume there is a problem, and in fact give a cachet of legitimacy
to the claim. This is as one poster all ready pointed out, the equivalent of crying wolf, which will have the effect of legitimate Pfeiffer ligitimate warnings when they appear.

Also, I noticed you never covered the leak at Indian point: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html

http://i.engadget.com/2009/12/24/san-francisco-considers-displaying-phone-radiation-levels-next-t/