Love your cell phone’s look? Hawaii wants giant warning labels on them

Love your cell phone’s look? Hawaii wants giant warning labels on them

In Hawaii, legislation is advancing that would put giant, non-removeable labels on phones. (Photo by Danny de Gracia)

HONOLULU, February 23, 2014 – One of the unique cultural developments of the Information Age was the development of modern mobile phones. For many people, mobile phones have a special part in their daily lives, serving not only as a communications platform but a treasured personal status symbol. If you bought a special case to improve the appearance of your phone, you’re not the only one: as a testament to just how much people care about their phones, in 2012 ABI Research estimated that smartphone accessory revenues were valued at $20 billion in that year alone.

Some Hollywood actresses have customized their phones with expensive gemstones. For others with a truly discerning taste, there are even luxury phones made of platinum and gold and other precious metals, valued between $3,000 to $6,000 or more. So if you have an affinity for dynamic cell phone looks, beware: in Hawaii, a bill is currently advancing through the Legislature that would mandate giant, non-removeable warning labels sized not less than 30% of the total size of the phone’s back cover.

In its original text, Hawaii Senate Bill 2571 as introduced required that both new and refurbished phones sold and rented in Hawaii be labeled “This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body.”

Just a few days ago on February 10, a joint hearing between the Hawaii Senate’s standing committees on Health and Technology and the Arts passed the measure with amendments, revising the giant, non-removeable label to read “To reduce exposure to radiation that may be hazardous to your health, please follow the enclosed product safety guidelines.”

This legislation is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, the cell phone’s place as a luxury or status item will mean that people in Hawaii will likely detest mandatory labels that can’t be removed from their phones. In the case of phones where the label is affixed to a removeable battery case, most fashion-conscious people will simply detach the factory case and buy a replacement case. For phones that do not have removeable backs, Hawaii users will either cover them with fashion cases or resort to ordering their cell phones from out-of-state.

Economically, the mandate of non-removeable, giant labels on cell phones means manufacturers and distributers will have a higher compliance cost for Hawaii phones. As if shipping phones to the islands wasn’t already a cost factor, now there is the production complexity of adding labels to the phones. The end result? Hawaii phones will be more expensive. There is also the distinct possibility that Hawaii sales of phones could dip – lowering both economic activity and government revenues – if Hawaii residents seek to circumvent the law by buying phones out-of-state.

Another problem with Hawaii’s proposed labeling mandate is how it could potentially interfere with future mobile technology. Today’s phones may accommodate labels, but the direction that the technology is headed is to wearable phones or even flexible or transparent devices. If phones become fully integrated with watches, will Hawaii users have an unsightly warning label printed on the strap? (After all, the law requires the label to be 30% of the phone’s size.) If phones become transparent, will the mandatory labels interfere with the user experience? If phones become flexible, will the labels render the devices useless?

Most troublesome of all is the latest draft of SB2571 doesn’t have a “warning label” but rather a plea to simply read the instruction manual. According to the official committee report, everyone who testified on the measure submitted comments in opposition, yet the joint committee members still voted yes. In effect, Hawaii legislators are now saying that grown adults can’t be trusted to own phones and need to be reminded 24/7 with giant, non-removeable labels that they need to read the instruction book.

If this law passes, not only will it affect commerce in Hawaii, it will mark every Hawaii resident who travels off island with a labeled phone as someone who came from a nanny state.

If such a bill absolutely must be enacted into law, a better idea would be to simply give Hawaii cell phone purchasers informed consent when signing the contract for a new cell phone. Even if mobile devices do have dangerous health effects, one can’t uninvent mobile devices for the sheer fact that they are too useful and portable. Penalizing commerce, innovation and personal ownership with a giant label is simply bad legislation.

SB2571 must clear one more committee, the Senate committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection, before crossing over to the House. Anyone who loves their cell phones and uses them responsibly should oppose SB2571 and call upon the Hawaii State Legislature to defer this bill and let free markets and responsible adults regulate themselves.



This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Danny de Gracia
Dr. Danny de Gracia is a political scientist and a former senior adviser to the Human Services and International Affairs committees at the Hawaii State Legislature. From 2011-2013 he served as an elected municipal board member in Waipahu. As an expert in international relations theory, military policy, political psychology and economics, Danny has advised numerous policymakers and elected officials and his opinions have been featured worldwide. Now working on his first novel, Danny resides on the island of Oahu.
  • Michael Brewer

    Who cares about looks and economic costs when there isn’t any reason to have the warnings in the first place – there isn’t any scientific evidence that supports brain cancer caused by cell phones!

    • http://codemonkeybryan.com Bryan Elliott

      It’s worse than that. The only two mechanisms by which EM radiation are known to be capable of causing health effects – heating and chemical change – are at energies orders of magnitude higher than what your cell phone puts out.

      Heating is relatively straightforward: your cell phone, if you absorb the entirety of its transmit signal, puts out a paltry half-watt. Your body emits about 100W of heat. You dissipate that without even breaking a sweat (sic).

      Chemical damage is a bit odder. The weakest chemical bond in the universe is the O-O bond, and to break it, you need a single photon at a high enough energy to break it. Two photons of half energy won’t do it – it’s like breaking a spring: if you don’t hit it hard enough, it just bounces back.

      It turns out that the energy needed is first achieved in the far ultraviolet – about 1000 times the energy of the photons your cell phone emits. Anything less is just makes your atoms vibrate – makes heat – and we’ve already talked about that.

      This, by the way, is why you can get radiation burns from hanging out in the sun without protection. “Sunburns”, as they’re colloquially called, are the result of EM radiation induced cellular damage from ultraviolet radiation.

      • Shawn Abrell

        Each of you could not be more wrong…., but why take my word for it:

        2013 American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) position on “Wireless Radiofrequency Radiation in Schools” that includes the following language:

        “The AAEM strongly supports the use of wired Internet connections and encourages avoidance of radiofrequency [radiation] such as from Wi-Fi, cellular and mobile phones and towers, and ‘smart meters’.

        The peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between RF exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease as well as reproductive and developmental disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer and other health conditions. …

        In May 2011 the World Health Organization elevated exposure to wireless radiation, including WiFi, into the Class 2b list of Carcinogens; recent research strengthens the level of evidence regarding carcinogenicity.

        There is consistent, emerging science that shows people, especially children who are more vulnerable due to developing brains and thinner skulls, are being affected by the increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

        In September 2010, the Journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine-Fertility and Sterility, reported that only four hours of exposure to a standard laptop using WiFi caused DNA damage to human sperm. …

        With WiFi in public facilities as well as schools, children would be exposed to WiFi for unprecedented periods of time,for their entire childhood. Some of these signals will be much more powerful than would be received at home, due to the need for the signals to go through thick walls and to serve many computers simultaneously. Signals in institutions are dozens of times more powerful than café and restaurant systems.

        To install WiFi in schools plus public spaces risks a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address. Statistics show that you can expect to see an immediate reaction in 3% and delayed effects in 30% of citizens of all ages.

        It is better to exercise caution and substitute with a safe alternate such as a wired connection. While more research is being conducted, children must be protected. Wired

        technology is not only safer, it also stronger and more secure.

        While the debate ensues about the dangers of RF, it is the doctors who must deal with the after effects. Until we can determine why some get sick and others do not, and some are debilitated for indeterminate amounts of time, we implore you to not take the risk, particularly with the health of so many children with whose safety you have been entrusted.

        Avoidance will always be the best policy. It should be reflected by minimizing RF exposures in public spaces.

        Respectfully,

        The Board of Directors

        of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine

    • Guest

      You couldnt be more wrong, but why take my word for it:

      2013 American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) position on “Wireless Radiofrequency Radiation in Schools” that includes the following language:

      “The AAEM strongly supports the use of wired Internet connections and encourages avoidance of radiofrequency [radiation] such as from Wi-Fi, cellular and mobile phones and towers, and ‘smart meters’.

      The peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between RF exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease as well as reproductive and developmental disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer and other health conditions. …

      In May 2011 the World Health Organization elevated exposure to wireless radiation, including WiFi, into the Class 2b list of Carcinogens; recent research strengthens the level of evidence regarding carcinogenicity.

      There is consistent, emerging science that shows people, especially children who are more vulnerable due to developing brains and thinner skulls, are being affected by the increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

      In September 2010, the Journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine-Fertility and Sterility, reported that only four hours of exposure to a standard laptop using WiFi caused DNA damage to human sperm. …

      With WiFi in public facilities as well as schools, children would be exposed to WiFi for unprecedented periods of time,for their entire childhood. Some of these signals will be much more powerful than would be received at home, due to the need for the signals to go through thick walls and to serve many computers simultaneously. Signals in institutions are dozens of times more powerful than café and restaurant systems.

      To install WiFi in schools plus public spaces risks a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address. Statistics show that you can expect to see an immediate reaction in 3% and delayed effects in 30% of citizens of all ages.

      It is better to exercise caution and substitute with a safe alternate such as a wired connection. While more research is being conducted, children must be protected. Wired
      technology is not only safer, it also stronger and more secure.

      While the debate ensues about the dangers of RF, it is the doctors who must deal with the after effects. Until we can determine why some get sick and others do not, and some are debilitated for indeterminate amounts of time, we implore you to not take the risk, particularly with the health of so many children with whose safety you have been entrusted.

      Avoidance will always be the best policy. It should be reflected by minimizing RF exposures in public spaces.

      Respectfully,

      The Board of Directors
      of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine

  • Spelaren

    Ha-woo strikes again.