How much radiation does your cell phone emit?
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That is all well and good but, I wanna know how good the signal is with my cars radiator.
Now, that's not funny, at all but, it is the first thing that came to my mind.
Now, that's not funny, at all but, it is the first thing that came to my mind.
DEEKAYPEE8569
Well-Known Member
Well, I couldn't find any info on MY phone, so I guess I'll have to find some other explanation for the two horns on top-a my head.
LC_Sulla
New Member
And how do you feel about laws that require this kind of information to be posted? I didn't ask you what you think the law has to say about it. I asked what you think about it. Do you have a right to know how much EM radiation a device you buy puts out? Do you have a right to know the caloric content of food you buy at a restaurant? What do you think?
Tilted
..
I think they go beyond the legitimate, or at least a desirable, role of government.
I have the right to know about such things to the extent I'm willing to condition my actions on knowing about them. If I want to know how many calories are in a Big Mac or how much radiation a 3G iPhone emits, I can try to figure those things out. If I think McDonald's or AT&T should facilitate me knowing such things, I can ask them to. I can refuse to buy from them if they don't make it sufficiently easy for me to find such things out. I can ask them to post the information prominently in their stores and refuse to do business with them if they don't comply.
I do not believe government should interfere in people's right to contract with one another. It should not tell me that I can't buy a phone from someone if they don't post radiation emission data. It should not tell them that they can't sell me a phone if they don't post radiation emission data. If they want to sell me a phone without posting radiation emission data, and I won't to buy a phone from them without their having posted radiation emission data, we should be allowed to do so. It is arrogant, offensive and oppressive of the government to presume to limit our right to agree on such a contract.
The government should provide a mechanism for contract enforcement - if it doesn't, contracts in the context of society are essentially meaningless and society itself is essentially meaningless. It should not involve itself in establishing or dictating the terms of contracts, so long as they are made between entities capable of consenting to them (that obviously opens up a significant conversation of its own, so I'll leave it at that for now).
Mongo53
New Member
I want to know if the food I eat at a Restaruant is reasonably safe and will NOT kill me with piosioning.
Just like I expect the consumer products I purchase are reasonably safe and will NOT harm me.
I'm very much a free market limited government guy, but I think that is a reasonable role for government in business, "REASONABLE" levels of consumer protection/safety and licensing. Government gets into all sort of other things it should and Government often takes it too far, OSHA and safety for example, where they write regs that you have to use a respirator with Windex to clean windows.
The studies show there is NO link between cell phones and health problems, BUT there is antecdotal evidence that some people have suffered some side effects from cell phones and a few serious ones, including people that develop a brain tumor exactly where the attenna of the phone they used for years positioned next to their head (very, very rare). Because of that most people agree, studies need to continue and eduacation of the consumer about the risks/situation should continue as well.
Keep in mind, a cell phone is a fairly powerful transmitter, its level of radiation is fairly low, but its probably the biggest source of radiation most of use experience.
Length of exposure is a much bigger factor than quantity of the exposure in most cases. i.e. most people will NOT be effected by a much higher radiation does than a cell phone for a short period and then never see that much again, would suffer no bad health effects, but someone exposed to a small dose very often for years, would be far more likely to develop side effects.
Using the bluetooth devices or plug in headset where you place the phone on the table or use it while its NOT on your body, are considered to reduce your risk greatly. Yes, bluetooth is just another transmitter, but it transmitts at a much much lower power than your cell phone, that why it only has the ability to stay linked over 10 feet. While Cells stay linked up to 3 miles. Remember, the level of radiation drops expodentially with distance, just a difference of a few feet between you and your cell phone while you use it can drop the radiation level signficantly.
As well, just try NOT to use your cell phone all the time. Someone that uses it a few minutes a day is far less likely than someone that uses it more than an hour a day.
Just like I expect the consumer products I purchase are reasonably safe and will NOT harm me.
I'm very much a free market limited government guy, but I think that is a reasonable role for government in business, "REASONABLE" levels of consumer protection/safety and licensing. Government gets into all sort of other things it should and Government often takes it too far, OSHA and safety for example, where they write regs that you have to use a respirator with Windex to clean windows.
The studies show there is NO link between cell phones and health problems, BUT there is antecdotal evidence that some people have suffered some side effects from cell phones and a few serious ones, including people that develop a brain tumor exactly where the attenna of the phone they used for years positioned next to their head (very, very rare). Because of that most people agree, studies need to continue and eduacation of the consumer about the risks/situation should continue as well.
Keep in mind, a cell phone is a fairly powerful transmitter, its level of radiation is fairly low, but its probably the biggest source of radiation most of use experience.
Length of exposure is a much bigger factor than quantity of the exposure in most cases. i.e. most people will NOT be effected by a much higher radiation does than a cell phone for a short period and then never see that much again, would suffer no bad health effects, but someone exposed to a small dose very often for years, would be far more likely to develop side effects.
Using the bluetooth devices or plug in headset where you place the phone on the table or use it while its NOT on your body, are considered to reduce your risk greatly. Yes, bluetooth is just another transmitter, but it transmitts at a much much lower power than your cell phone, that why it only has the ability to stay linked over 10 feet. While Cells stay linked up to 3 miles. Remember, the level of radiation drops expodentially with distance, just a difference of a few feet between you and your cell phone while you use it can drop the radiation level signficantly.
As well, just try NOT to use your cell phone all the time. Someone that uses it a few minutes a day is far less likely than someone that uses it more than an hour a day.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
so to speak; Govenment should ensure that safety belts are fit for the job. They should not ensure that you use them.
Fair enough way to look at it?
preselector
Member
So if someone jabbers on the phone all the time, they're more likely to die. Sounds like Darwin-in-action to me. I'm cool with that. Too bad the antenna isn't in their underwear. Then it would get 'em before they can breed.
Mongo53
New Member
Yea, thats one way to look at it. As well, a reasonable standard must apply, can't require Detriot to make cars that will withstand 100mph crashes, etc.
Safety belts are a pet peeve of mine, yes I know its rare, but people who do NOT wear their safety belt, a minor accident causes a driver to loose control and hit other cars and/or makes the accident worse.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Right but, if that, action, choice, is now the provence of gummint, where does it end, if anywhere?
If the government, reasonably, imposes this crash safety standard for a car or that safety standard for a building, I can't choose to not use those standards. Is it now the gummints role to see to it that I only drive when I am 'properly' prepared be it rest, what's on my mind or what I've consumed? How I am feeling? Is it then the gummints role to make sure I don't use a deep fryer in the house or not smoke or not use candles?
I think it is a clear distinction for government limits; promoting the general welfare or providing it?
Pushrod
Patriot
Excellent post Tilted, and I agree with you completely. Let the free market dictate the product. If it is found to be unsafe, people will not purchase it and the product will fail. If a company is knowingly causing illness or death with their product, they can be hammered in court. The government has no place dictating the production criteria.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bad post. Safety regulation, consumer protection, is a proper role for government. Setting standards for air bags is good. Owning the car company is bad. Setting the standard for phone emissions; this is what is deemed to be safe at this level of usage, good government.