Solve : Cell Phone radiation lawsuit...?

1.	Solve : Cell Phone radiation lawsuit...?
Answer» Read this over. Had to believe. Quote San Francisco fires back over cell phone radiation lawsuit San Francisco is actually a hotbed of smartphone activity with multiple mobile startups and everyone and their mom rocking an Apple iPhone, but the city is in a war with the mobile industry over the issue of cell phone radiation. The industry’s trade association, the CTIA, recently filed a lawsuit against San Francisco’s ordinance which requires vendors to publicly display how much radiation is emitted by the mobile devices. Not surprisingly, the city isn’t happy with this move. http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/26/san-francisco-fires-back-over-cell-phone-radiation-lawsuit/ San Fransisco is home to one of the most liberal whacked out and nonsensical Circuit Courts of Appeals in the Nation... To say i'm not suprised by this at all is at best a huge huge understatement.And the lawyers are getting richer.Quote from: Geek-9pm on July 26, 2010, 04:48:33 PM Read this over. Had to believe. It did get proven a while ago the Mobile phone radiation does no damage Actually, I don't have a problem with requiring cell phone vendors to post radiation levels emitted by their phones, other than the fact that there is almost no standardization on how those levels are measured. And the average person doesn't have a clue what any of those levels really mean anyway. Technophobes will always think any radiation emitted, no matter how slight, will kill them. Professional, or military, mobile radios have a lot more power output than any cell phones and it's never been an issue, and some of them are used just as much as cell phones. Another CASE where lawyers will make a lot of money over non-issues.Quote from: Thomas_Horscroft on July 31, 2010, 05:56:24 PM It did get proven a while ago the Mobile phone radiation does no damage The suit was not as not even about damage! But is has the implication.Sort of. Hard to understand. Let me see if I can clarify the REAL issue here. SF says if you SELL a cell phone, you have to tell the buyer it uses UHF radio waves that can harm a fly if it sits on the antenna for 30 days and nights while you are talking for 30 days and night. No claim is made that talking on the cell phone 30 days and nights would be harmful to you. Only to the fly. The suit is by those who believe that protecting the fly in any way should not be a condition of sale. And that it causes under due stress on the vendors to help the fly population. SF claims that buyers have the right to know before they buy a phone. Which phones would not harm a fly are not identified in either the SF law or the suit. In fact, it is not clear what kind of fly they would like to protect. Yes, I am from the Bay Area. These kind of issues are IMPORTANT to Bay Area residents. Never mind that we are all losing out homes and we have no work. We need to know if a cell phone would hurt a fly. Quote from: Geek-9pm on July 31, 2010, 06:43:00 PM The suit was not as not even about damage! But is has the implication.Sort of. Hard to understand. Let me see if I can clarify the real issue here. SF says if you sell a cell phone, you have to tell the buyer it uses UHF radio waves that can harm a fly if it sits on the antenna for 30 days and nights while you are talking for 30 days and night. No claim is made that talking on the cell phone 30 days and nights would be harmful to you. Only to the fly. The suit is by those who believe that protecting the fly in any way should not be a condition of sale. And that it causes under due stress on the vendors to help the fly population. SF claims that buyers have the right to know before they buy a phone. Which phones would not harm a fly are not identified in either the SF law or the suit. In fact, it is not clear what kind of fly they would like to protect. Yes, I am from the Bay Area. These kind of issues are important to Bay Area residents. Never mind that we are all losing out homes and we have no work. We need to know if a cell phone would hurt a fly. Their SERIOUSLY going on about a FLY. who talks on there phone for 30 days and nights anyway. We should perform a little home test.Radiation is everywhere. Who you gonna sue?

Answer» Read this over. Had to believe.
Quote

San Francisco fires back over cell phone radiation lawsuit

San Francisco is actually a hotbed of smartphone activity with multiple mobile startups and everyone and their mom rocking an Apple iPhone, but the city is in a war with the mobile industry over the issue of cell phone radiation.

The industry’s trade association, the CTIA, recently filed a lawsuit against San Francisco’s ordinance which requires vendors to publicly display how much radiation is emitted by the mobile devices. Not surprisingly, the city isn’t happy with this move.

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/26/san-francisco-fires-back-over-cell-phone-radiation-lawsuit/

San Fransisco is home to one of the most liberal whacked out and nonsensical Circuit Courts of Appeals in the Nation...
To say i'm not suprised by this at all is at best a huge huge understatement.And the lawyers are getting richer.Quote from: Geek-9pm on July 26, 2010, 04:48:33 PM

Read this over. Had to believe.

It did get proven a while ago the Mobile phone radiation does no damage Actually, I don't have a problem with requiring cell phone vendors to post radiation levels emitted by their phones, other than the fact that there is almost no standardization on how those levels are measured. And the average person doesn't have a clue what any of those levels really mean anyway.

Technophobes will always think any radiation emitted, no matter how slight, will kill them.

Professional, or military, mobile radios have a lot more power output than any cell phones and it's never been an issue, and some of them are used just as much as cell phones.

Another CASE where lawyers will make a lot of money over non-issues.Quote from: Thomas_Horscroft on July 31, 2010, 05:56:24 PM

It did get proven a while ago the Mobile phone radiation does no damage

The suit was not as not even about damage! But is has the implication.Sort of.

Hard to understand. Let me see if I can clarify the REAL issue here.

SF says if you SELL a cell phone, you have to tell the buyer it uses UHF radio waves that can harm a fly if it sits on the antenna for 30 days and nights while you are talking for 30 days and night.

No claim is made that talking on the cell phone 30 days and nights would be harmful to you. Only to the fly. The suit is by those who believe that protecting the fly in any way should not be a condition of sale. And that it causes under due stress on the vendors to help the fly population.

SF claims that buyers have the right to know before they buy a phone. Which phones would not harm a fly are not identified in either the SF law or the suit. In fact, it is not clear what kind of fly they would like to protect.

Yes, I am from the Bay Area. These kind of issues are IMPORTANT to Bay Area residents. Never mind that we are all losing out homes and we have no work.

We need to know if a cell phone would hurt a fly.

Quote from: Geek-9pm on July 31, 2010, 06:43:00 PM

The suit was not as not even about damage! But is has the implication.Sort of.

Hard to understand. Let me see if I can clarify the real issue here.

SF says if you sell a cell phone, you have to tell the buyer it uses UHF radio waves that can harm a fly if it sits on the antenna for 30 days and nights while you are talking for 30 days and night.

No claim is made that talking on the cell phone 30 days and nights would be harmful to you. Only to the fly. The suit is by those who believe that protecting the fly in any way should not be a condition of sale. And that it causes under due stress on the vendors to help the fly population.

SF claims that buyers have the right to know before they buy a phone. Which phones would not harm a fly are not identified in either the SF law or the suit. In fact, it is not clear what kind of fly they would like to protect.

Yes, I am from the Bay Area. These kind of issues are important to Bay Area residents. Never mind that we are all losing out homes and we have no work.

We need to know if a cell phone would hurt a fly.

Their SERIOUSLY going on about a FLY. who talks on there phone for 30 days and nights anyway.
We should perform a little home test.Radiation is everywhere. Who you gonna sue?

Solve : Cell Phone radiation lawsuit...?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment