Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood endured a new round of blog-based criticism this week after suggesting that people who use their cells phones while driving should have their ignitions disabled by an elecro-magnetic-pulse weapon, dragged out of their cars and forced to ride bicycles up and down that special lane on Pennsylvania Avenue so at least someone will use the darn thing after we spent all that money on it.

But others at the DOT have apparently talked him down.

From The Daily Caller, “After raising the idea, Department of Transportation says it’s not interested in cell phone jamming technology in cars“:

While Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stressed personal responsibility in a recent TV appearance, the Secretary said the department was “looking into” other technological possibilities.

“I think the technology is there,” said LaHood on MSNBC, Monday. “ I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones.”

Or not.

“While NHTSA is currently researching various technologies, Secretary LaHood believes first and foremost that everyone has a personal responsibility to drive safely,” said U.S. Department of Transportation spokeswoman Olivia Alair. “The Department of Transportation currently has no plans to endorse any particular technology.”

Secretary LaHood has also been in a dispute with incoming Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio who want to reallocate federal funds for high-speed rail projects for more pressing infrastructure projects, like repairing roads and bridges.

It surprises us that no one has made the connection. The new, intrusive pat-down searches and high-tech screening devices that have caused such a fuss at airports? Isn’t it obvious? They’re intended to make air travel so unpleasant that people will ride the train instead. As The Washington Post reports today, “Instead of a TSA airport search, he’ll take the train.”

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ decision to impose anti-consumer labeling on cell phones sold in the city is a remarkably anti-business move. CTIA–The Wireless Association — the cell phone industry’s trade association — issued a statement in response:

CTIA and the wireless industry are disappointed that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has approved the so-called ‘Cell Phone Right-to-Know’ ordinance. Rather than inform, the ordinance will potentially mislead consumers with point of sale requirements suggesting that some phones are ‘safer’ than others based on radiofrequency (RF) emissions. In fact, all phones sold legally in the U.S. must comply with the Federal Communications Commission’s safety standards for RF emissions. According to the FCC, all such compliant phones are safe phones as measured by these standards. The scientific evidence does not support point of sale requirements that would suggest some compliant phones are ‘safer’ than other compliant phones based on RF emissions.

“While we have enjoyed bringing our three day fall show to San Francisco five times in the last seven years, which has meant we’ve brought more than 68,000 exhibitors and attendees and had an economic impact of almost $80 million to the Bay Area economy, the Board of Supervisors’ action has led us to decide to relocate our show. We are disappointed to announce that the 2010 CTIA Enterprise and Applications show in October will be the last one we have in San Francisco for the foreseeable future.  We have already been contacted by several other cities that are eager to work with us and understand the tremendous benefits that wireless technology and our show can provide their area.”

The association also has a website that answers questions about the health effects of cell phone use: www.cellphonehealthfacts.org

From George Ou at Digital Society, “California vehicle standard blocks cell, radio, and GPS“:

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning.  The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also blocks lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves.  That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded.  Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.  Furthermore, the rules are so stringent that they effectively make sunroofs black, even though many consumers use the covers.

Here’s some background on CARB.  This is the same group of regulators who passed a controversial regulation that would require completely new diesel engines which will cause the state tremendous economic loss, and the same group who mandated the costly use of carcinogenic MTBE in California’s reformulated gasoline.

Meanwhile, the California State Energy Commission is getting ready to ban larger flatscreen televisions because of their energy consumption. But there surely will be no unintended consequences from this latest regulatory fiat, right? (continue reading…)

The cover of the latest “Skeptical Inquirer” prompts us to go back and review the testimony of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing held on Monday, September 14, on the health effects of cell phone use. Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) noted he had called the hearing at the request of Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and commented:

[It] is not the intention of this subcommittee to create undue alarm. But one thing that we’ll want to discuss today is whether we need more NIH research in this area and how that research should be conducted. Our expert witnesses will also discuss if there are precautions we should be taking now to reduce our exposure to cell phone radiation in case these fears turn out to be well-founded.

I’m reminded of this nation’s experience with cigarettes. Decades passed between the first warnings about smoking tobacco and the final definitive conclusion that cigarettes cause lung cancer. If more people had heeded those early warnings or if we could have established the link between tobacco and cancer more quickly, many lives would have been saved. We don’t know yet whether cell phone radiation poses a similar danger. I hope today’s hearing will begin to address that question.

Sen. Specter (and we’ve added links to his statement):

The subject was brought to my attention by a distinguished doctor who has written extensively on cancer, Dr. David Servan-Schreiber, from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. And he wrote a book on cancer which I found to be very illuminating. [Anticancer] I’ve had a couple of bouts with Hodgkins and was fascinated to hear Dr. Servan-Schreiber’s views on sugar and white flour feeding into cancer. And if you’ve had chemotherapy a couple of times, you look into any conceivable source to minimize the risk.

This was an appropriations hearing, so the core issue was money for research, and the portions we watched were not alarmist. Still, when a hearing starts out with comparisons to tobacco, you have to look around the room (or the IP log) for representatives of the litigation industry.

And … here are some headlines prompted by the hearing:

• KTVU, “Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Brain Tumors”
• WebMD, “Senators Want Research on Cell Phones, Cancer”
• USA Today, “Experts urge more study of cellphone radiation”
• Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “Cell phone warnings by the earful”
• Reuters, “US senator promises look into cellphone-cancer link”

From today’s Washington Post, “Tales from the Cellphone Tour,” an informative and entertaining Business Section article about  Cyriac Roeding, a mobile technology expert who traveled the world to see how people in other cultures use their cell phones:

In South Africa, personal-injury lawyers have an infomercial television show that tells viewers to text the show and within 48 hours a lawyer will call.

Texting is big worldwide. And some poorer countries may never develop landline technology, jumping right into the mobile technology.

As noted below, H.R. 4040, the now-passed consumer product regulation and litigation bill, bans three classes of phthalates “temporarily” until scientific studies prove these plastic softeners are safe to use. A preemptive ban represents the “precautionary principle” in action, preventing any use of a substance until it is demonstrated to pose no risk whatsoever.

This regulatory principle (which is used in the European Union) is an effective weapon when wielded by luddites, ideological scaredycats, anti-consumerists and friends of the tort bar against anything that offends their sensitivities. After all, you can never absolutely prove a negative.

Company: “We’re glad to introduce our new Product A, with X-Appeal! After years of extensive testing and rigorous federal regulatory review, its approval is a win-win for everyone. This product cuts costs to consumers by 50 percent, lasts twice as long, eliminates previously challenged ingredients, and is fun, too!”

Company Critic: “You don’t care about children. You just care about money. Our studies — well, it’s more like an opinion survey, but a scientific one — show a substantial risk when the substance is injested daily in excess of 500 grams. We’re calling for a consumer boycott.”

But so much for reductive scenarios. In the real world…

Columnist Dan Gardner of The Ottawa Citizen reports that Toronto public health officials have warned parents to minimize their children’s time spent on cellphones. Dr. Ronald Herberman, the director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent staff a memo urging children and adults to reduce their use of cellphones. Similar warnings have been made in Europe. Serious stuff, right? From “The precautionary principle“:

“Overall,” reports the U.S. National Cancer Institute, “research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect.” A spokesman told the National Post that: “Health Canada sees no scientific reason to consider the use of cellphones as unsafe.”

And because the types of cancer allegedly caused by cellphones are very rare, any risk — if there is one — “is probably very small,” adds the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

These conclusions aren’t actually disputed by the authorities warning against cellphone use. What they argue instead is — however much nobler the intentions — almost the mirror image of the tobacco industry’s doubt campaign.

There is some evidence that cellphones might cause harm, they say. And there are large gaps in the research. And that’s enough to act.

“At the heart of my concern,” Dr. Herberman told The Associated Press, “is that we shouldn’t wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later.”

Yes, it’s the “precautionary principle” again.

So, let’s panic parents, attack a key technology, and, just possibly, gin up enough public anxiety so a class-action suit will be easier to generate…because of the possibility of a chance of a risk, maybe.