 caesarv
join:1999-08-02
Santa Rosa, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·SONIC.NET
| Embarrassed As a native San Franciscan, even I am embarrassed by this. There are enough warnings already and most all are ignored because they are so absurdly commonplace. In Calif, we have the required Prop 65 warnings about dangerous chemicals that could cause cancer. Well, that includes virtually everything (even sand) so every store must have this warning posted at the entrance. Does ANYONE pay attention to this? Absolutely not...it is a complete waste of signage. If they had limited the requirement to REALLY dangerous chemicals, then it might have had some effect. As it is, nobody cares.
At least with Prop 65, one could see some sort of logic behind it. The cell phone requirement is completely unfounded and borders on witchcraft....or maybe even religion. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| While I believe there is SOME (small) link between SOME brain cancers and EXCESSIVE cell phone use (actually EXCESSIVE EMF from MANY sources) in a ( very few) individuals... I believe the risk is minuet compared to the dangers of people talking/texting during other activities that SHOULD have their full concentration which poses risks both to the user and others around them.
AND excessive labeling leads to MOST people ignoring ALL warnings, even those pointing out dangers that pose actual realtime high order risks. |
|
