Another View: Maine should pay attention to the dangers of cell phone use
An editorial was wrong to suggest that warning labels are an inappropriate safeguard.
The irony of the subhead on the March 4 editorial against cell phone warning labels, "It would be wrong to treat the devices with the same caution given to tobacco products," did not escape me.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Christopher Hallweaver is a resident of Yarmouth.
As a supporter of the Children's Wireless Protection Act, I fully agree with you that it would be wrong to treat these devices with the same caution – that is, the same lame, inexcusable, and corporate-trusting caution as we dealt with tobacco. We are being inexcusably cautious in failing to recognize the potential hazards of cell phone usage. This is especially true with the ever-increasing, almost ubiquitous use of cell phones by children.
It took too many years for us to finally refute the fear, uncertainty and doubt that big tobacco raised despite the overwhelming evidence that tobacco use was bad for one's health. Do we really want to entrust our health and safety to the $4 trillion cell phone industry? The Children's Wireless Protection Act merely provides for a warning label that states the fact that cell phones emit electromagnetic radiation and that children and pregnant women should keep their device away from their body (as stated in rarely-read user manuals).
I use my cell phone every day and it is a marvelous technological innovation that allows me to be more productive and to be closer to family and friends. The first 6 inches of the antennae is where the bulk of the radiation is emitted. When I have a choice, I use a land line. Most often I use a hands-free device so that my phone is not glued to my ear.
I urge Maine residents to contact their state legislators and urge them to support the Children's Wireless Protection Act, a common-sense solution for our children.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
4 COMMENTS
Scrib said...
And lets tax c phones to the hilt. Lets start with a $30 monthly tax for these cell phone addicts. Also- Make them go outside when calling or receiving a call. The noise pollution is bad enough but now that we know that someone somewhere thinks there is possible physical hazard- why take the chance? At least come up with a penalty for anyone using a c phone in a car with a child present. Actually I'm sort of jesting. Columnist- it has been found that if you wrap tinfoil around your head- preferably down to your chin, but at least in the form of a little tinfoil cap- you will be perfecly safe. Please do this and set an example for the rest of us.
March 8, 2010 at 2:27 AM Report abuse
Scommentname said...
This "viewpoint" comes from the same type who are just as quick to believe that magnetic devices placed in apparel to be worn close to the body "cure" disease. Also without any scientific basis in fact. Another kook for nanny state government. First you label it, then you tax it, which is what they really want.
March 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM Report abuse
Chew said...
First... When I was a kid phone use was monitored and supervised by my parents... Second, the studies showing long term danger are in stark contrast to the many studies showing that cell phones are safe. We need to focus on jump starting the economy, loweing the costs of health insurance, end enabling families to afford to have a stay at home parent so we can better raise and teach our children. This feel good legislation is a complete waste of taxpayer resources at the current time.
March 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM Report abuse
DP said...
The way I see some people abuse the use of cellphones, I believe they are already having brain drain....
March 8, 2010 at 4:48 PM Report abuse