Indeed. Every conversation should start with a bill for a law.

Please, give these people more money. They do such vital things.

I could point out the science, that notes that average people get a hell of a lot more radiation from gamma ray bursts in the core of the galaxy than you do from the tiny microwave emissions from cell phones. Expecting anyone to pay attention to science, though, is crazy talk. How about a compromise, by noting that a comprehensive ban (with appropriate penalties) on texting while driving will save more lives than this bill would?

Perhaps the biggest thing a person can do to reduce radiation exposure is to move their bedroom from the second floor to the first floor.

Then again, that will expose you to markedly more radon.

You could also move to the equator which has a lot less gamma radiation.

Radio waves have much less energy than other forms of em radiation (including visible light) because of it's low frequency and long wavelength. There's no reason to believe that radio waves are going to have an impact on your health since they're just not energetic enough to damage cells. It's not until you get down into the UV range of the spectrum that cellular damage, and damage to the genome, starts to occur.

If anything responsible use of a cell phone may save your life since you can contact emergency services wherever you are.

Yes! And something must be done to curb overexposure to DHMO!

I believe DHMO is the primary contaminant that caused the crash in Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus populations (and subsequent ESA listing):

http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

Comparing Gamma rays to radio waves is a misnomer, as radio waves are not ionizing. Also, the output in watts for a cell phone is nowhere as high as the RF field, at similar wavelengths, you are immersed in during an MRI.

How long are you in there? And for a cranial examination to boot!

My father, who worked as a commercial radio engineer (and eventually owned the radio station) once commented that he was surprised that none of the radiation/EM spectrum alarmists ever got worked up over broadcast tv and radio.

Forget cell phones. You've got the signals from scores of radio and tv stations blasting through your body 24/7. If there were any adverse effects, I think we'd have noticed by now.

This is the sort of idiocy that makes what should be a huge Democratic advanTage ... A commitment to science and reason ... Into yet another area where the Ds are just as worthless as the Rs, they''re just kowtowing to a different class of fundamentalists.

If there is one area where it is fantastically easy to do Great epidemiological studies, it's in the effects ... Excuse me, total absEnce of effects of non ionizing radiation. We have precise, fine grained data on where the towers are, When the phones were introduced, how many people use them, how long they use them, etc. We can do global sized studies with the kind of precisIon that is usually hard to get in the lab with total control over all Variables.

And the answer is zilch. There is NO effect to warn of, except that some politician with zero critical thinking skills and a hunger to appease the forces of superstition will waste time and money while appearing to care. This clown and the one who thinks that kids shouldn't be pulled behind a bike because he had a stray thought one day about it should both be required to pay all the costs for this, the printing, the Staff time, everything. We are absolutely hammering some pretty vital Services this year, you'd think that the Dems could at least have the Decency to quit with the "I want to start a discussion BS bills" while people aRe losing their health care and homes. If you don't know the solutions to all the problems, fine, neither does anyone else, but for Christs sake, at least have the decency to shut up about stupid stuff while you do your damnedest To work on the real things.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11878150

The analysis (Stone's conditional test) was performed computing observed and expected cases (reference: population of Rome) in 5 bands of increasing radius (2 km width). The risk of childhood leukaemia was higher than expected within 6 km from the station (Standardized Incidence Ratio = 217; 95% Confidence Interval 99-405). Stone's test showed a significant decrease in risk with increasing distance both for male adult mortality (p-value = 0.03) and for childhood incidence (p-value = 0.04).

PJB, a radio transMission tower ... a broadcaster ... Is not the same as a cell phone, by something like 6-7 ordErs of magnitude.

But the law doesn't propose warning signs in public to warn people that they are entering broadcast zones ... No, it simply proposes adding a meaningless warning about a nonexisteNt threat from Cellphones, in a state where we refuse to outlaw all cellPhone calls by drivers despite plenty of good evidence that hands free Is no safer than handheld, because it's driver distraction that's the problem, nOt the handheld piece.

When the Lege stands up to it's corPorate masters and gets serious about prohibiting distracted drivIng we can talk about the risk of Cellphones radiation. Until then, it's just pandering to anti science Idiocy.

George, a cell phone is 1/2 of the equation. The other half is the directional cell towers that connect you to the call. Cell towers pump out EM at higher frequency than radio/tv and at comparable amplitude.

Meanwhile, less should certainly be healthier:

"As cell phones have spread, so have large cell towers — those unsightly stalks of steel topped by transmitters and other electronics that sprouted across the country over the last decade.

Now the wireless industry is planning a future without them, or at least without many more of them. Instead, it's looking at much smaller antennas, some tiny enough to hold in a hand. These could be placed on lampposts, utility poles and buildings — virtually anywhere with electrical and network connections."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_wireless_everywhere