Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your Body, California Health Department Warns

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a warning against the hazards of cellphone radiation this week. They are asking people to decrease their use of these devices and suggest keeping your distance when possible. TechCrunch reports: The warning comes after findings were offered up this week from a 2009 department document, which was published after an order from the Sacramento Superior Court. A year ago, UC Berkeley professor Joel Moskowitz initiated a lawsuit to get the department to release the findings after he started looking into whether mobile phone use increased the risk of tumors. A draft of the document was released in March, but the final release is more extensive.

According to the Federal Communication Commission's website, there is no national standard developed for safety limits. However, the agency requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure all phones comply with "objective limits for safe exposure." The CDPH recommends not keeping your phone in your pocket, not putting it up to your ear for a prolonged amount of time, keeping use low if there are two bars or less, not sleeping near it at night and to be aware that if you are in a fast-moving car, bus or train, your phone will emit more RF energy to maintain the connection.

Telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

Are known to the state of California to cause cancer.

Re:Telephones

[jellomizer]

California does have a tendency to get ahead of themselves. They seem to be the first to warn people about danger but the problem is they don’t do the full science and come with the warning after the science is over, so they have a lot of false starts.
I think California wants to be progressive and say they are the first to protect people from danger while the rest of the world gets in trouble by taking time to study it. However often the benefits of things outweigh their danger. Especially if the danger isn’t fully proven.
Yes we get companies trying to block and confuse the science and that practice should be stopped, but policies should wait for the science process to get to a consensus before making policy.

Re: Telephones

[c6gunner]

Scaremongering about GMO and cellphone radiation is the exact opposite of "progressive". Using that label for a bunch of luddites is very 1984.

Re: Telephones

[c6gunner]

The people who think that fearmongering about WiFi is completely justified will list an equally impressive-looking bunch of reasons for why they believe it, and their list will be just as bullshit as yours. That's what happens when you ignore science and worry yourself into a panic over some nonsense you read on Natural News.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its safe to say California is sorry.

Re: Telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

MasterBlaster turn off power and water from Arizona, see how California likes dark and thirsty!

Re:Telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

That sixth-largest thing is misleading because it doesn't take into account taxes, fees, and cost of living. Once all that is accounted for, California winds up 12th, just behind Mexico.

Re: Telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on Earth would you take any of those things into account in calculating the size of an economy?

That's some sort of standard-of-living calculation, not economy size.

Re:Telephones

[BronsCon]

A single state still comes out ahead of an entire first-world country. Your point?

Re:

[dgatwood]

That sixth-largest thing is misleading because it doesn't take into account taxes, fees, and cost of living. Once all that is accounted for, California winds up 12th, just behind Mexico.

That's misleading, too, because the cost of living is high precisely because the economy is so strong. And the cost of living is high only in the cities. If you're willing to live in the middle of nowhere, California isn't that crazy a place to live, cost-wise.

Also, those taxes are high largely because the federal governme

Re:

[drinkypoo]

I think its a question of rather being safe than sorry.

UCLA did a study which showed that cannabis smoke was not only not a cancer risk, but also may in fact reduce cancer risk. But now California is classifying cannabis smoke a carcinogen, on what basis exactly? Answer, totally made-up bullshit because they want to regulate where you are allowed to smoke to the last millimeter so that they can sell permits and write tickets. Everyone and everything is a profit center.

California's warnings and prohibitions started out with good intentions, and I am extremely ap

Re:

[drinkypoo]

One study that disagrees with many other studies, and you want to cling on to it? Sounds just like what a climate science denier does.

That is not at all what is happening, though. California classified cannabis smoke as a carcinogen because it contains compounds known to be carcinogenic. But one thing doesn't lead to the other, because the human body is a complicated place. If the smoke contains both things which raise and things which lower your cancer risk, then you can't simply point to it and say "look, it causes cancer". In fact, some of the other things it does (like increasing sputum production) actually reduce your risk from other

Re: Telephones

[c6gunner]

That's a nice bit of hand waiving, but there are quite a few studies which show that marijuana use DOES in fact correlate with an increase in cancer rates. It's not like California is the only place in the world that's looking into this stuff, you know.

Re:Telephones

[Junta]

The problem is that strategy causes no one to take California's concerns remotely seriously.

For example, prop 65 warnings are on everything and everywhere:

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mp... [licdn.com]

It has no teeth because pretty much everything has that label. Many companies add the label as a matter of course, even if they don't have any of the relevant chemicals in some products because it's easier to apply the label to everything than keep track of whether they need to or not. Additionally, some of the chemicals on the list are about as likely to cause cancer as non-ionizing radiation.

Heck even contact with most shipping pallets can cause a package to be contaminated with formaldehyde enough to be detected in some of the tests, so a company without a warning could be at risk from that despite it being a shipping company's fault.

Re:Telephones

[Alypius]

It has a lot of teeth, just not really for the state. Just as with the ADA, a cottage industry of trial lawyers popped up to sue/settle with any business they could find that didn't have the sign or to quibble (as with Starbucks) over exactly what words need to be on the sign. This cell phone ruling is just a sop to those same lawyers so they can start pre-litigation shakedowns.

So, in my pocket, next to my three boys, not good?

[Anonymous Coward]

where then?

Re:

[Mr D from 63]

Just turn off data. The data transmissions are the most cancerous.

.......... prove me wrong!

Re:

[mobby_6kl]

Is it the ones or zeroes that are worse for you??

No radiation risk

[jonfr]

There is no danger from mobile phone electron radiation (it is non-ionising radiation). That document in California is wrong. The biggest risk is a unstable battery resulting in a fire in people pocket. Transmission power from mobile phones is limited to maximum 2W (bad signal areas). In towns and such areas most mobile phones are running on transmission power that is from 0.1mW and up to 0.5mW. General rule is that bad signal means more transmission power.

Re:No radiation risk

[rl117]

Cancer is caused by far more than ionising radiation. Is it within the realm of possibility that localised heating of cell contents by microwaves could cause damage to cell machinery for replication control? Or cause localised unwinding of DNA to expose repressed genes for transcription? Both are possible.

Re:

[mikael]

Then having a hot shower would be even more dangerous. Drinking hot cups of coffee and tea is known to raise the risk of esophageal cancer.

Re:No radiation risk

[rl117]

The L and S bands used for mobile communications are classed as microwaves. But it's not really that important. Both microwaves and lower frequency RF are energy inputs which can impart energy (heating) to a system even if the precise mechanisms differ. What about second- and third-order harmonic generation in ordered structures such as collagen connective tissue in the skin? When you have a transmitter sitting still in close proximity to the body, it's important to consider the effects it might have. Just like you get a hotspot in the centre of a microwave even with a stirrer, is there a focus adjacent to the phone antenna? Also note that even if the chances of disregulation are exceedingly unlikely, it only needs to happen once in a single cell. And while I'm no genius, I do have a PhD and spent some time working on cancer-related projects in a pharma company; I'm not stupid as you claim. General heating doesn't cause much damage; the body can detect it and respond with heat-shock proteins to cope. But what about sustained and highly-localised energy inputs? Is it sufficient to unfold or permanently denature some critical regulatory protein? Terahertz radiation can unwind DNA, as can raising the temperature; the helix is stabilised primarily through dipole interactions and it's easy to disrupt (see: PCR). Can that also extend to repressed genes in heterochromatin? It isn't stupid to ask such questions, though it's very hard to answer them experimentally.

Re:

[religionofpeas]

What about second- and third-order harmonic generation

The FCC doesn't want them, so manufacturers put filters in the phones to suppress higher harmonics and other kinds of distortion.

Re:

[rl117]

A was referring to harmonics generated when an EM source interacts with ordered biological structures. They aren't emitted by the phone.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: No radiation risk

[Brockmire]

You heard it here first, clothing causes cancer. The only known workaround is to be fully nude. California, you're up first.

Re:No radiation risk

[rl117]

You're thinking about "heat" too generally. Suppose you raise the temperature by a degree in a bulk volume, and that's survivable. But what about highly-localised but larger increases in small volumes such as a few cubic micrometres? Such as you might get if an EM source was present in a fixed position for an extended period. While the inverse square law has been mentioned a few times in other comments, this is only true... in a vacuum. Structures in the body can scatter, focus, absorb and reflect EM radiation in all sorts of different ways. It's incredibly easy to give a glib answer, but the body is a vastly complex set of structures and so assuming it's equally true here is I think a bit naive and simplistic. We actually use some of these properties to do label-free imaging of collagen, for example; I've done it with a multi-photon microscope using a tuneable Ti-Sapphire mode-locked femtosecond pulsed laser and it can image living skin structures beautifully using second-order harmonics. If you switch from a raster scan to a fixed point you can see the cell contents start to convect from the heating, before they boil away and the sample is ruined. That's under extreme artificial conditions, but it does make one wonder if similar processes can occur in the real world. By the way, while cells can survive temperature drops all the way to freezing point without much ill effect (cellular processes slow down), rises are a different matter since it increases the instability of all sorts of protein, DNA and RNA structures--folding and inter-molecular associations. It only needs a transient increase in the wrong place at the wrong time to disrupt something critical, and then it's all a matter of probability. There's a large correlation between temperature and throat cancer incidence in drinkers of hot beverages such as tea and coffee vs cold for example, with higher temperatures (tea without milk) having a higher correlation. What does that imply for heating induced by other methods? I don't know, but I do know that "1-2 degrees of extra heat is not going to cause cancer" as you wrote is not something that I would be confident in stating since biology is never that black and white.

Re:

[rl117]

Thanks for the informative and respectful answer. It depends, doesn't it? Consider standing waves for a moment. If you put a chocolate bar into a microwave with the turntable taken out, you can see that you get a line of holes due to the standing wave emitted by the magnetron. Seriously, try it out, and you'll see exactly how a long wavelength can cause specific localised heating in a tiny area (and you can eat the hot and gooey experimental result after). Similarly, if you look at the radiation patter

Re:

[tomxor]

Also, heat? 1-2 degrees of extra heat is not going to cause cancer. Counterexample - Humans wear clothes, which increases body temperature. Year wearing clothes does not increase cancer rates by any noticeable amount.

You are disregarding localisation. There are many ways to apply heat, in your ill fitting analogy you are drawing upon the very tangible methods such as convection and conduction as mechanisms of transport into the body, localised high temperature spots don't naturally occur in the mediums that facilitate those methods and even if they did they would dissipate before deeply penetrating the body.

Heat emerging from interaction with penetrating radiated energy is a different kind of beast, however you should b

Re:

[rgbatduke]

2W of non-ionizing power, only 1 W MAX of which can be directed towards your body, at frequencies where the energy just doesn't penetrate much into your body. It is about as risky as taking a christmas tree light bulb, putting it in a cell-phone transparent box, and putting that inside your pocket.

I'd sooner believe the connection between high voltage transmission towers and cancer. The power at ground level is again absurdly low, but at least there I can imagine the high voltage arcing into the air at po

Re:

[jabuzz]

The risk from high voltage transmissions lines is as I understand it believed to be due to the concentration of pollutants due to the low level magnetic fields that they produce. That is it's not the power lines themselves that are the problem, because the idea the power lines directly cause cancer is as laughable as the idea that mobile phones do.

The basics are there is *NEVER* been in the history of the world a *REPEATABLE* scientific experiment that shows a link between non ionizing radiation and cancer.

Re:

[religionofpeas]

The basics are there is *NEVER* been in the history of the world a *REPEATABLE* scientific experiment that shows a link between non ionizing radiation and cancer.

Skin cancer due to UV has been mentioned several times in this thread. You may want to be more precise in your wording.

Re:

[rgbatduke]

But if you are a tech-hating Luddite aging flower child who believes that silicon dioxide crystals with various dopings, worn on the body or just kept in a house, affect your health in beneficial ways, you can't even pretend to convince yourself that you "understand" a cell phone the way you do the channeling of crystal energies with sacred symbols. This creates a state of cognitive dissonance -- what you don't understand you fear and you resent in equal parts. The resentment is made even greater when all

Re:

[Entrope]

More to the point, visible light (not UV) and even infrared have much more energy per photon than what mobile phones transmit, and you are exposed to higher energies when you go outside than when you have a phone nearby.

Many adult human males have cross-sections from the front or back of 0.6 to 0.7 square meters. The Sun delivers 1400 W/m/m to the Earth, so someone on the low end of that range would -- if they were lying down -- receive about 840 W of energy from the Sun. Even if you de-rate that because

Re:

[Entrope]

If it was built by someone stupid enough to ask that question, no.

Re:

[Misagon]

That's not how it works.

The electromagnetic waves from mobile phones do not cause the initial mutation that causes a cell to turn into a cancer cell and multiply out of control. That fact has been long established and is not contested here.
What microwaves in the frequency ranges used by cell phones have been shown to do is to promote the growth of existing cancel cells.

Mutations into cancer cells are actually not as uncommon as most people think. All of us have had cancer cells many many times, but what nor

Re:No radiation risk

[Orgasmatron]

UV is partly ionizing and partly not. However, it always carries more energy per photon than visible light. What we call radio, even including microwaves, is in the opposite direction. Microwaves carry even less energy per photon than infrared light, and if you told someone you were afraid of a 2 watt quasi-spherical infrared emitter they'd fall over laughing.

Re:

[religionofpeas]

I know. The point is that you can't make a blanket statement that all non-ionizing radiation is safe.

Re:

[Stormbringer]

And, if we were dealing with an infrared emitter, they'd be right. We're not. We're dealing with something with roughly the same penetration as a microwave oven.

Incorrect

[aepervius]

Firstly while lower energy UV are non ionizing , the higher UV frequency at the boundary from xray are ionizing - it depends on the molecules/atoms as there is no fix precise limit on what an ionizing energy is. But far more importantly they are at frequencies where bonds can be broken. That is why the effect is far different than with microwave radiation, as those are frequencies where mostly rotation occurs (as a rule of thumb, microwave rotations of groups, infrared , vibrations, uv/visible, bond breakin

Re:

[religionofpeas]

Firstly while lower energy UV are non ionizing

Then it's not incorrect, is it ?

Radiation vs. radiation

[Jamlad]

It's probably more a testament to the creaking educational system that most people don't know the difference between electromagnetic radiation from a lightbulb and nuclear byproducts from fission.

My electromagnetism professor did a safety study for the PTA of the local elementary school of where the operator should put their new mast. The PTA didn't appreciate that the optimum location was on top of the school since the worst place to receive a signal is on the axis of oscillation of a dipole emitter.

I

Somebody bought stock from a man-purse company

[nospam007]

That must be it.

Radiation inverse-square law

[Max_W]

The intensity of radiation passing through any unit area is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. It is the fundamental law of the universe, and It is valid for any radiation, including electromagnetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Practically it means, that even a small increase in distance decreases the radiation dramatically. So putting a smartphone into a backpack, or on a windowsill, away from the bed, decreases the radiation probably by several orders of magnitude.

In even simpler words, - do not keep radiating devices, like a smartphone, router, etc., too close to a place were you sit or sleep.

Re:

[msauve]

"The intensity of radiation passing through any unit area is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source."

Cellphones are not isotropic radiators.

Re:

[Max_W]

Cellphones are not isotropic radiators.

Here is the general idea of a cell phone radiation pattern: http://www.raymaps.com/wp-cont... [raymaps.com]

Obviously, it does not have a directional antenna, simply because a smartphone does not know to what tower it is connecting so it radiates in all direction.

Yes, theoretically id does not radiate from one point, but practically speaking it does.

Re:

[tomxor]

Nothing is a perfect isotropic radiator... what is you point? inverse square law still applies unless cell phones have suddenly started using quantum tunnelling instead of old fashioned RF. It is valid to the discussion because of how it applies to the signal amplitude falloff and therefore proximity makes a big difference, it not being a perfectly isotropic is irrelevant.

Re:

[Max_W]

It is just an example. If a smartphone is in the pocket, the distance to the body is 1 mm. If it is in the backpack, it is 10 cm, or 100 mm.

But the radiation intensity is lower not 100 times, but 100*100 = 10000, ten thousand times lower.

The inverse-square law is applicable also to such things as, say, shrapnel, light, loud sound, etc.

Re:

[Max_W]

Certainly, there are numerous ways people try to circumvent the inverse-square law with more or less success, including directional antennas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Still, this is the fundamental unbreakable law of nature. That is, by the way, why there is no powerful central cell tower in a city, but several cell towers covering the area.

Re:

[Max_W]

I did not want to say that smartphone or a router electromagnetic radiation is that harmful. I do not know it.

I just wanted to inform that if one worries that it may be harmful, then it is possible to reduce the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation thousands of times by moving a device just several centimeters from the body. Because the radiation decreases by the square of distance.

WHO says no

[De_Boswachter]

Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/pub... [who.int]

Re:

[ebonum]

Hard to see how cell phone signals causes cancer. These frequencies are not ionizing. A bit like saying the warmth from holding someone's hand is going to cause cancer. Makes no sense. There needs to be a mechanism for the radiation to do damage (knock off electrons), but there is none.

Re:

[religionofpeas]

So how does non-ionizing UV light cause cancer ?

Re:

[religionofpeas]

It doesn't, duh. Ionizing UV light does

US Federal Communications Commission material defines ionizing radiation as that with a photon energy greater than 10 eV (equivalent to a far ultraviolet wavelength of 124 nanometers).

The longer wavelength UV (UVA/UVB) is between 280-400 nm, but can still contribute to cancer.

Re: WHO says no

[mapkinase]

WHO who? In La La Land California Health Board rules.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"Findings"???

[Mashiki]

I can't find much actual scientific information in any of the links in the summary. Can someone please provide a link to the actual findings of which mention is made?

There doesn't actually appear to be any, it seems to be made up from a bureaucrat based on faulty findings. Honestly? The entire thing reminds me of the "danger of EM radiation from powerlines!" that was hot shit in the 1980's and 90's, if you want to see an example of that in action, there's an entire near-cult-like anti-em-powerline following in Japan.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Mashiki]

Nope, sorry, being exposed to people like Mashiki is not known to cause cancer. Yes, he is toxic, vile, and despicable, but that's a matter of character, not substance.

If you got anymore bitter, we could use you as a source of quinine and you'd actually be useful.

Re:

[Orgasmatron]

Don't waste your time. The California Department of Health is a political body, not a scientific one.

Meanwhile, the real threat is ignored

[grumling]

http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/... [fortune.com]

In 2016 40,000 people were killed in automobile accidents (nationwide. I can't get reliable numbers for California due to ambulance chaser web sites clogging search results). 4.6 million people seriously injured. These are real, recordable factual numbers, not some foggy "might possibly be but can't really see anything conclusive" epidemiological study.

But when a solution is offered, AKA self-driving vehicles, the outcry from the nut jobs is that there's no way they'll ever

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Meanwhile, the real threat is ignored

Except the threat is not being ignored, every automaker is working on autonomous vehicles, and California in particular is fast-tracking trials.

Re:

[grumling]

I was referring to the general public's perception of autonomous vehicles. Admit I should have been a little more specific.

Re:

[jon3k]

I was referring to the general public's perception of autonomous vehicles.

Do you have a source for this, maybe in the form of a poll? I get the impression that people overwhelmingly support autonomous vehicles, or at least semi-autonomous. Admittedly it's totally anecdotal. I just think about all the cars being sold now with adaptive cruise control which is essentially a basic form.

Re: Meanwhile, the real threat is ignored

[Brockmire]

I've heard a few people who love cars and love driving poo-poo self driving cars. It's similar to, "you'll pry my clutch from my cold, dead hand".

Re:

[fafalone]

Banning manual drive? Pfft. We should just ban driving above 5mph too while we wait for Level 5 automation. I mean, it appears we've decided torturing people* is an acceptable way to deal with the problem of opioid abuse. What's a little slow speed compared to that? Think of the lives saved, at the mere cost of massive inconvenience!

* - Yes it's inflammatory language, but to torture someone means to voluntarily inflict severe pain over a long period of time, and that's exactly what is happening as doctors

When future generations look back...

[CODiNE]

recommends not keeping your phone in your pocket

The wisest among us were known for holding their phones at a distance using so called "selfie sticks". While at first derided by others, their intelligence evidenced by longer lifespans and lack of serious illnesses lead to a beautiful society blessed with their fabulous rulership.

This is why my son, we must always photograph our food before first eating, to share the joy of our blessed nonnoms with the world and more importantly our esteemed ancestors in the cloud.

It's not a warning

[pots]

It is alarmist in a nebulous sense, but it's not a warning. There aren't any actual claims about negative impacts to your health, just a bunch of bullshit about what may happen, or what some people believe. The actual title is, "CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones."

The closest thing to a solid claim that it makes is: "Although the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the risks of cell phone use, research suggests long-term, high use may impact human health." Claiming that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on this seems like an outright falsehood, but I suppose that as long as there's one holdout then you can say that it's not a real consensus.

i get it

[mapkinase]

that's what those selfie sticks are for: you can walk down the street safely with your mobile phone at a safe distance of a selfie stick.

Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your B...

[dohzer]

Was I the only one who read that as "Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your Buddy"?
I was relieved after reading the actual headline.

Can CA please go away?

[Alypius]

O Sweet Saint Andreas, hear our prayer.

Unsettling

[seven of five]

The news that California has adopted this as an official position is a bit disturbing, especially in a state that's home to so many great universities. This could only mean that lawmakers don't have much STEM education if any. I hope this remains isolated to the one state. In the current culture of ignorance, it could spread like California wildfire.

Hasn't it occurred to them, that, with billions of cellphones in use around the world for decades, if there were any problem, it'd be obvious?

Good advice

[PPH]

Because (at least on TV) that's how all the cops find the body. By calling the cell phone and hearing the dumpster ring.

Graphs, people ...

[CaptainDork]

... one showing exponential growth of cell phone use and the other showing exponential growth in brain tumor incidents.

[citation needed]

getting ridiculous

[slashmydots]

I don't know how many of you are familiar with bureaucratic nonsense and the massive over-control of the government in California but I'd recommend keeping California far away from your body.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

In your European man purse.

Re:

[rmdingler]

Or: The one with Joey's bag [youtube.com] my friend.

Re:

[thegarbz]

I keep my shopping bag in my pocket you insensitive clod.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[drinkypoo]

If I carry a shopping bag, it's a thin one that wads up and goes in my pocket. I don't want to be carrying items in my hands if I can avoid it. That's why I was born with a penis... so my clothes would have pockets.

I don't want kids, so I just keep my cellphone in my front pants pocket. Kill two stones with one bird.

Re:

[smallfries]

Only if you let it swing free in some hippie state otherwise you can buy fabric coverings that block the radiation and prevent the worst damage.

Re:

[angel'o'sphere]

And the sun does not cause sun burns or skin cancer?

Re:True Joke: Deeply, deeply frightening!!! NOT.

[DontBeAMoran]

Why do you think most of us don't go outside and live in basements.

Re:

[DontBeAMoran]

That's why I buy nVidia video cards instead of AMD.

Re:

[Junta]

Someone needs to put a prop65 label on the sun.

Re:The Battery has Colbalt in it.

[jellomizer]

Citation needed.

Re:

[phayes]

Troll alert...

There is no relation between the use of minute amounts of cobalt in batteries and cancer.

Reference on Cobalt being a cancer risk?

Re:

[rmdingler]

There is some reported toxicity [sharecare.com] regarding cobalt buildup in the body, typically from a hip replacement or overindulging in B12 supplements.

Unless you're prone to removing the battery for a late night snack, any danger presented by the cobalt in your battery is dwarfed by the likelihood of walking into traffic while distracted by your cellie.

Re:

[phayes]

Cobalt, like just about every heavier element is a toxin when ingested, but even that that doesn't make it a cancer risk.

What makes it even more ridiculous is that iDevice batteries are sealed in & even if zombie idiots were prone to midnight teardowns & subsequent battery gnoshing, they would die from lithium & electrolyte poisoning long before cobalt toxicity became an issue.

Re:The Battery has Colbalt in it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What else are you going to eat? It's not like you can afford food after buying an iphone.

Re:

[DontBeAMoran]

But is it free-range cobalt?

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

Actually, the term is "artisanal-mined cobalt". Contrary to what you might think, that's that bad stuff.

Re:Alt science

[jellomizer]

I have found both political parties to be eqaualy stupid in understanding science. However I have found a particular trend.
Liberals don’t believe science when they say something is safe.
Conservatives don’t believe science when they say something is harmful.
The problem is somethings are dangerous and some things are safe. And many of these arguments are not science they are merely thought exercises. X contains trace amounts of bad elements Y. Then people are at risk from over exposure to Y. Or X is purely safe because our body can tolate some amount of Y. But no own is doing the the research to see if the body can and how to tolerate that amount of Y.

Re: Alt science

[Jarwulf]

Yeah liberals don't want to regulate behavior at all, except speech, voluntary gay conversion therapy, homeschooling, spontaneous sex, how you spend your money, freedom to hire, interactions with the opposite sex which nobody had a problem with up until 10 years ago, right to choose who to associate with, cake baking, running your business, wedding photography, hunting, eating, playing and on and on to virtually every area you can think of. Other than that, they're completely hands off unlike conservatives.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

My brand new LG shows bars. My last Samsung had bars. What kind of phone do you have?!?

He's got an iPhone, which shows signal strength as a series of progressively longer butt plugs.

Re:

[Junta]

It's probably a reference to Prop65, which specifically does enable a company to not get sued, so long as there is the prop65 warning on it. This narrowly applies to prop65 specific cancer things (not any claims about non-ionizing radiation), but it is the poster child for ineffectual crying wolf to not get sued in California.

Re:

[Entrope]

Is this where someone posts an affiliate link spam advertising some sale on tin-foil pants?

Tin foil: It's not just for hats any more!

Re: Turned my hair white

[Brockmire]

20 years ago, I had a full head of hair. Now I'm going grey AND bald! Thanks, now I know it was my cell phone.

Re: Turned my hair white

[Brockmire]

So if I stop using my phone, my hair will grow all back and brown, right? Right?!

Re:

[SeaFox]

That hasnâ(TM)t been fully researched. For now it would seem âoewhoâ(TM)sâ is safest.

The meaning of your post is harder to decipher than the CDPH's response.