Cell Phone Makers Patent "Brain Shields" 203
CyberLeader writes: "An article in the UK Times is reporting that cell phone manufacturers have patented 'brain shields,' or components intended to reduce the stray EM radiation that might enter your noggin from your phone. This despite their consistent claims that cell phone radiation is harmless."
Re:I've been wearing an aluminium foil hat for yea (Score:1)
I hate to say this, but there's a limited supply of jokes in each language. I thought it was funny. Still is when you put a new spin on it (combining the Simpsons and Futurama jokes together). Deal with it.
It's true (Score:1)
Trolling for GCC 2.96
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:1)
How big such a shield has to be? (Score:1)
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:1)
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:1)
Hell, I'll give your two for the price of one. CLUE 2 [lawandhelp.com]
Next time you post to /. try getting your facts straight.
This isn't new! (Score:5)
My favorite Cel Phone Accessories (Not a joke) (Score:2)
Only in America.
They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:5)
Does that mean you can't create something that will block the radiation? Of course not. Will it prevent brain tumors? Of course not. Will it sell more phones to people who are afraid of tumors? Yes. Is it better to have a patent on it so your competitors can't sell phones with the same feature? Of course.
It's all about the benjamins, baby.
Consistent claims? (Score:1)
Surely you are not stating that their claims are consistent with the facts? I think the word that you are want is "constant". One would expect better English from the editorial staff.
Re:harmless?? (Score:2)
Of course it's harmless! (Score:1)
___
Profit (Score:2)
IRNI
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:2)
Apropos of nothing, my girlfriend's great-grandfather used to think that if you left food cooked in the microwave out for too long without eating it, it would go back to raw.
He still says it, but now intends it as a joke...
Re:Headaches... (Score:2)
The cell phone manufactorers know about the phone's underground plot and until now had no weapons to fight it!
Seriously..
Hey, man, I got prior art! (Score:2)
the radio tower in Des Moines told me to
join the Backstreet Boys, that's prior art,
man. No fair..
Coming soon (Score:4)
As seen on TV!
power savings by blocking radiation (Score:2)
(I know of at least one project with Conexant [conexant.com] and UCLA [ucla.edu] directed at using photonic crystals [mit.edu] to point cell-phone antenna output away from the head for just this reason.)
Re:In other news... (necessary M$, RIAA, Dubya rip (Score:2)
It's the witty oneline insults that make me keep coming back to Slashdot! Leet! Keep it up, gents!
Re:In other news... (necessary M$, RIAA, Dubya rip (Score:2)
All I can say to that is damn, am I jealous of my dear mother! Ha ha!
I worry more about 802.11b (Score:3)
Am I imagining a tingling feeling down there, or should I be worried?
But it DOES have a far reaching impact, (Score:2)
For instance, 10 to 20 years ago, you could go to a neighborhood pool and have a reasonable chance of finding a diving board or a slide. These days, they're almost entirely gone.
You want a cup of coffee? Sorry, you can't have that as hot as you like, restraunts have reacted too.
I know physicians with unblemished records, in Philadelphia, that pay in excess of 100k dollars a year in malpractice insurance. The average is somewhere around 60k a year. Guess where that money comes from? Out the physicians pocket? Ultimately, much of it comes out of yours. Though many of them simply cannot manage it and have been effectively been forced to close down.
You want to startup a medical devices or biotech company? Better checkout the insurance costs there.
I could go on, better let me lay it out for you. It discourages people from investing money. It makes hard working people that much less wealthy, because they have to pay high premiums just to stay in business. It creates watered down products. It takes away the consumers right to decide matters for himself, since everything will eventually get watered down so that the biggest idiots can not possibly hurt themselves (or even claim that they did). Even charities and non-profits have had to make cutbacks of all sorts, just to minimize their exposure.
These effects are real and undeniable. I do not see how anyone can defend it. It does little to help those that are truely injured--it is too slow and too inefficient, too much of the money ends up in the lawyers pockets too.
Also, this from the Economist... (Score:2)
"No time for play", The Economist [economist.com]
Irrelevant? Hardly.
Re:Well, wouldn't you? (Score:2)
--
Re:I worry more about 802.11b (Score:2)
--
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Show me ONE paper by a scientist who didn't attend "Bob's Skool o'Science Stuff" which demonstrates that non-ionizing radiation AT THE LEVELS PRODUCED BY CELL PHONES has a detrimental effect. Then we'll talk. For now, I'm rating you at the same level as the guy with the sandwich board who keeps telling me the world is about to end due to the CIA/UFO conspiracy.
-jon
Re:Here's some data for you to chew on. (Score:2)
First of all, rats ain't people. Has anyone done these studies on people? It shouldn't be hard to give cell phones to 100 college students, have them talk on them for one hour, and then test their short term memory vs. a group which talked on a land-line phone for an hour. Memory tests would be trivial; dye injection is a bit trickier, but could be done. The fact that this research isn't out there is highly suspect. It's the first thing I thought of, and I don't do this for a living.
Secondly, some of this data is seriously old. #4 is from 1982. It was self-published (Via the SUNY-Albany press), not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The peer-review process might have its problems, but I trust it a heck of a lot more than some guy who publishes stuff on his own.
#5 is from 1974 in a Warsaw Bloc country. I have no idea what sort of review it would have undergone, and I have no idea how valid its methods are. Unless you read Polish, I don't think you know what it says, either.
-jon
Re:Ok, hold yer breath but.... (Score:2)
Of course (Score:2)
--Gfunk
Re:Science (Score:2)
Re:you know it's bad when.. (Score:3)
Fucking amazing.
Bullshit (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. That's the grade-school version of things. I work at a particle accelerator, and we also have to worry about X-rays (lower energy than gamma, but still dangerous), neutrons, and protons (they're what the cyclotron accelerates).
3. Gamma Radiation - This is what cellphones give off. They are simply high energy photons with a specific frequency. Light might be considered gamma radiation. The higher the frequency, the more damaging they are.
Here, you're just plain wrong. Gamma and visible light are both subsets of electromagnetic radiation, but they are not the same thing. Gamma photons are much higher energy than visible light photons, and microwave photons (what cell phones emit) are lower energy. This is extremely important, because, below a certain threshold (I believe in the UV region), electromagnetic radiation is non-ionizing, meaning that the photons don't have enough energy to ionize atoms and create free radicals.
Why does that matter? That mechanism is the main way electromagnetic radiation can cause tissue damage, besides thermal effects. Since cell phones emit microwaves, which are non-ionizing, we don't have to worry about it too much. As for thermal effects, cell phones don't put out nearly enough power to dangerously heat your brain.
It's still possible there's some mechanism by which microwaves affect the rate of some chemical process in the brain, which, through some complicated, indirect mechanism, increases the risk of cancer, but it's very unlikely. Nobody has found such a mechanism, and there's no good evidence to suggest a cancer link. If you're worried about radiation, get your basement checked for radon. About half of your annual dose of radiation probably comes from radon decay (more if you live in France or certain other places), and, if you're going to be paranoid, installing good ventillation in your basement is the easiest, cheapest, and least foolish way of doing so...
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
Nope, they're not. The wavelength of microwaves is on the order of centimetres, while the wavelength of UV is on the order of tens or hundreds of nanometres (much smaller). Shorter wavelengths imply higher frequencies which imply higher energies, thus microwaves are non-ionizing.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
I'm way too lazy to do the calculation for you, but I'd say if the holes are less than 1/4 wavelength in diameter (figure out what wavelength you want to block first), and that the thing is at least 30% metal, you should probably do OK. I don't think there's a clearcut point at which the signal is blocked/not blocked--it's a matter of degree. More metal will block more signal, although making the holes small compared to the wavelength is important. I would recommend using a solid mesh instead of a mesh of insulated wires, though. The extra resistance between two perpendicular wires (if they're connected farther away) might not help. Also, make sure the shielding is grounded.
One thing you might want to do is check the grounds in your house to see if they're working properly. Bad grounds could be causing/aggravating the interference. Buy a ground tester or call an electrician...
Re:Headaches... (Score:2)
Changing the radiation pattern (Score:2)
Imagine a lamp, minus shade, in an otherwise empty room. The light from the bulb lights the room pretty evenly (save for right under the lamp). This is what is known as an isotropic radiator. It radiates the same amount of light in all directions. An antenna like this is called a 0 dBi (0 decibel isotropic) antenna. It has no "gain".
Now, imagine that you put a mirror on one side of the lamp. Now, one side of the room is dark, and one side is getting twice as much light. This is NOT an isotropic radiator. On the side of the room that is getting twice as much light, you have 3 dBi gain (3 dB is double, and again this is related to an isotropic radiator. dB are ALWAYS a relative measurement.) This is what these alleged "brain shields" are doing.
The problem: what if the cell site is on the dark side of the room? The cell site will tell the phone to increase its output power - in effect, the site is saying "It's dark over here, turn the lamp up!". Now, you have a brighter lamp, so more power available to do "bad things", but your call still sounds like crap.
If you are worried about this sort of thing, don't use a hand-held phone: use a car phone, with the antenna properly mounted on the roof. You will be in the RF shadow (you will be "under the lamp"), and you will still be able to make calls (please, just don't do so while driving.)
Now, this all is largely BS, as modern phones, at maximum power, only put out 100 mW of power - shine a good flashlight on your head and you are getting more radiation, at a higher energy per photon, than your cell phone. We won't even talk about going out under that big fusion reactor in the sky....
Do you go skiing? Do you go into natural caves? Do you fly on planes? Do you live in a brick house? Do you have a basement? Then you are placing yourself at more risk of radiation damage than using your phone.
Re:Changing the radiation pattern (Score:2)
Second, the point I was trying to make was that a) you wouldn't be reducing the amount of RF, in the case that the cell site is on the same side of the antenna as your head, and b) now you have the phone making more power, so the schmuck next to you gets cooked a bit more (actually, I'm more concerned about the effects of the phone on other systems around it - listen to children's band channel #19 for a good example of what happens when everybody turns their power up.)(
Third, you assume far too much when you state that poor reception will cause the user to turn. In my experience, poor reception will cause the user to yell more loudly into the phone, on the mistaken assumtion that yelling will somehow improve the situation.
Most people don't even understand "radiation" (Score:2)
As soon as most people hear the word "radiation" they become scared out of their wits. I would bet that 80% of the North American population couldn't even acurately define the word. All they know is that in "The Hunt For Red October" they said radiation was bad! It must be bad!
Damn near everything that uses electricity radiates microwave or EMF energy. Your toaster, blender and hair dryer all put out more EMF energy than a cell phone.
It is possible that the energy from cell phones can cause a phyisical reaction, we don't know, but just beause the word radiation is used it's not automatically a bad thing.
As P.T. Barnum said... (Score:4)
"There's a sucker born every minute."
The cellphone industry is trying to do two things:
This isn't some sinister plot, this is a rediculous response to some rediculous junk science. A study is released, intended to be reviewed by the scientific community, and the media picks up on the story and turns it into a full-blown scare. We saw it with Alar, with power transmission lines, and now with cell phones. But because people don't have the logical or scientific skill to determine the truth, they allow themselves to be scammed twice.
As a sidenote, those interested in such issues of Junk Science and how it's screwing you over should check out the book Gallileo's Revenge by Peter William Huber. It goes into considerable detail on how pseudo-scientific claims are exploited by lawyers and interests groups to serve their own policy purposes.
Gamma radiation (Score:2)
Actually, most scientists [harvard.edu] use the term gamma radiation only for electromagnetic rays of a very highly frequency, as usually only found in radioactive decay. Gamma rays have a higher frequency than X-rays, which are higher than ultraviolet, which in turn are higher than visual light, which is still zillions times higher than even the most high frequency radio waves. It would make more sense to compare the mobile's radiation to microwaves, rather than to gamma rays.
Pollution and not EM radiation? (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
Huh? Protecting the public health is a legitimate function of government. It'd be nice to know that those needles were offered as part of an overall effort to reduce drug use in the first place, but I certainly consider it to be a more legitimate function of government than giving massive handouts of taxpayer money to industries & rich individuals (e.g., through pork-barrel spending & protective legislation).
Ok, hold yer breath but.... (Score:2)
Re:Ok, hold yer breath but.... (Score:2)
MSNBC [msnbc.com]
More MSNBC [msnbc.com]
ZDnet [zdnet.com]
Cancerpage.com [cancerpage.com]
More recent idg.net story supposedly proving the link [idg.net]
One relating to cell towers which mentions the phones [cs.ruu.nl]
Ok, there's LOT's of studies going on, and most of them are highly political in my opinion.
Most of them also seem to ignore the fact that RF is RF. Changing what "mode" it's in isn't going to change the physical nature of the signal. All digital cell phones do is use a a/d convertor to convert your voice to a digital form, then it's serialized into a form that can be transmitted on a antenna. This usually means somewhere it get's translated to audio that sounds a little like a modem.
Also, RF has been around since BEFORE we were. Sure, humans have only been pumping out RF for about 80 years, but the earth, the planets and the sun ALL produced some form of RF or EM radiation. We are exposed to it everyday.
One last link [upenn.edu] describes brain cancer and the fact that noone knows WHAT causes it yet. My point is, scientists too often will point to new technology as the cause of something that just might be a cyclical thing in nature that can not be explained. Why do some people get cancer when they follow the American Cancer Society diet and exercise regimen and have no risk factors (family history of, working in a risky environment..etc.)? Noone knows. Noone will ever know the entire story on this one. All I do know is noone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt either way. I will assume, for my use, that it doesn't cause it for now mainly because there are more studies refuting the link then studies with HARD evidence proving the link. I also fully believe once this has been studied more, that more people will come to believe as I have. I and many others await those studies. Also, this givesme one less thing to worry about, which helps my stress level! :)
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
Or maybe people should recognize that hot beverages (amazingly enough) are HOT.
*What* shields? (Score:3)
Re:I worry more about 802.11b (Score:2)
I'm writing with a laptop with an Orinoco card sitting on my *lap.* Am I imagining a tingling feeling down there, or should I be worried?
Sure, your nads are being slow roasted, but with 11 Mbps of goodness.
[homer]Mmmmm, bandwidth[/homer]
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:2)
OK, so maybe I'm wrong (& i'm sorry if this has already been mentioned - i'm on my lunch break and don't have time to read the whole topic). Please correct me if you've got some proper info cos I'm genuinely interested.
If I had a nickel (Score:2)
for every time I heard something was carcinogenic, I'd have a tumor in my hand from counting all that change.
Do you get a prize if you live a long and miserable life? I didn't get the brochure apparently. I'm just going to keep on grilling beef with a metal antenna on a teflon skillet thanks.
-atticus
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:2)
Mobile phone radiate about 1W. If its held to your eye, about 0.5W enters your head and brain. Now 0.5W is the same ammount of energy per second you'd get from dropping a bag of sugar (1Kg) on your head from a height of 5cm each second.
Do you Fancy that sort of impact because I don't.
Of course the mobile phone energy is not percursive in nature. It definitely causes a slight heating of the brain, but the question is: does it cause modifications of brain/cell chemistry, or does it interfere with brain electrical activity. It is known that strong magnetic fields can interfer with brain function, and even switch off regions of the brain, but the magnetic fields in phone radio/microwave are much weaker than that.
With the scientitic uncertainty in the efects of mobile phone, the public reaction of its better to be safe than sorry is very rational.
Well, wouldn't you? (Score:3)
Do you:
a) Do nothing, listen to them whine. b) "Fix" your product. Get sued when someone "discovers" that it isn't fixed. c) Create a shield that will "protect" the people. If the harm doesn't really exist, you are now profiting TWICE on the paranoid people.
-----------------------------------------------
Re:As P.T. Barnum said... (Score:2)
It may limit exposure, but probably not for the reasons you expect. Look at the changes in mobile phones - particularly from the marketing angle - and there is a very clear progression: smaller, lighter, longer battery life, longer talk time. Now, if you consider that some of the transmitted energy from the antenna is absorbed by the body, some of the battery life is essentially wasted. (We'll ignore games, MP3 players and other novelties for simplicity.
Personally I think the greatest health risk from mobile phones is the distraction they cause. I've seen several drivers have a near miss because they were too busy talking on the phone instead of watching the road - ditto for pedestrians.
Re:As P.T. Barnum said... (Score:3)
Sorry I disagree with this on the cell phone issue:
Why have the cellphone companies, esp on new models (in the US anyway) placed the antennas at a angle *more* tangent to the users head unless they wanted to limit user exposure? Especially since this makes holding the devices more awkward. Notice the older Nokia 51xx model phones, (there are a zillion of these) the antennas are not configured in this manner, which is a more comfortable position to the user.
However on the issue of power lines, I agree and disagree. I agree it has been accepted that at *most* that they have little to no effect on cancer rates. (The highest being childhood leukemia, which is itself negligible). However the issue which ticked off a lot of people was the industry cited studies which viewed the effect of the cell as a whole, not the *internal* DNA damage that could occur, so it looked like a cover up to many people. And like many people I no longer hold faith with gov't "studies" as these are the people who told us we could wash radioactive fallout off with soap and water and be *fine*, and that asbestos was *harmless*.
It boils down to this: People have been lied to so many times, can't believe the gov't and most industries (it been proven time and time again), so why not *play it safe* and get a cell phone shield?
Sheesh life is a risk (Score:5)
You are also taking a risk crossing the road, eating your meals (in case you choke) and performing basically any act in your life. Get over it. I like using a cell phone so I am prepared to take this risk. This reminds me about an email I received today about how Americans (I am American) are not prepared to except the consequences of taking risks anymore and feel that everything is someone elses fault. Enjoy:
(note: I don't take any credit for this)
Let's see if I understand how America works lately . . .
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her
lap while driving, she blames the restaurant
If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock 'n' roll
music
or musician he liked.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer,
your family blames the tobacco company.
If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you
blame the school for poor sex education.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, you
blame the bartender.
If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to shoot up with
heroin was dirty, you blame the government for not providing clean
ones.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you blame
television.
If a deranged madman shoots your friend, you blame the gun
manufacturer.
And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the
pilots at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead, the
mother
of the deceased blames the airline.
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:2)
Radio waves are basically microwave radiation. Read Voodoo Science by Robert Park -- he goes into great detail about the history of the microwave-ovens-cause-cancer story. The guy who broke the story (Paul Brodeur) went about his research backwards, starting from the premise that if the (Cold War era)military was doing most of the research work that there must be something being covered up. There's still no shortage of true believers, but the research on microwaves came up empty a long time ago, even before Brodeur got to work. He still nearly killed the microwave oven market because he was an expert fearmonger.
You'll find the same about the whole power line controversy of the early 90s -- study after study showed no statistical link between electromagnetic fields and cancer, disproving some rather sloppy early work; in fact, the power lines are even less likely to cause problems because there's a lot less energy in a power line field than there is coming out of a magnetron tube. Park makes no explicit reference to cell phones in his book, but when you realize you're talking about the same sort of radiation, it seems pretty clear that the cell phone controversy is the same shit in a different bag.
/Brian
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
Now, you can look on the Pop-Tart box, and see this very necessary warning: "WARNING: Pop-Tarts are hot when heated."
What have we come to?
But I can get one free with the Internal Antenna! (Score:2)
Of course they're going to come up with something (Score:2)
They have to do something, whether the radiation poses a threat or not. I mean, let's face it, in today's litigation-driven society (at least here in the US), it's perfectly feasible for a company that has done nothing wrong and harmed no one to be successfully sued for billions of dollars, based solely on fear and ignorance. Just look at the breast implant manufacturers. Driven into bankruptcy, despite being exonerated time after time by every reputable scientific study.
You can bet your ass that the Cell Phone manufacturers are working overtime on this.
This is not a matter of admitting guilt (Score:2)
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
Imagine the commercials for these... (Score:2)
The slogan then comes on screen: Are you protected?
Ahh, the entertainment that is possible when you crank up the FUD machine...
--
< )
( \
X
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
...Since cell phones emit microwaves, which are non-ionizing, we don't have to worry about it too much"
???
If the cutoff is in the UV band, then cellphone radiation (microwaves) must be ionising radiation, as microwaves are higher energy than UV AFAIK.
Re:As P.T. Barnum said... (Score:2)
An additional note - those interested in junk science would probably also do well to avoid the website of the same name, which is actually a corporate front, funded by the worst of the worst polluters, rights-abusers, environmentally destructuve companies, etc.
(It's largely just fairly crude anti-environmental propaganda, but if you're the sort who both tends to be highly suspicious of enviromentalist's claims, and don't thoroughly verify your sources, it could easily sucker you in).
I read in a magazine that the guy who runs it is something of a nutbar too. Some of the claims he's made and things he's done would make even the slimiest MultinationalBigPolluter Co. PR man wince
But anyway, like I say, if you want junk science, then www.junkscience.com might not be a good one, because much of the so-called junk science there is of the straw man variety, and much of the debunking of said imaginary or exaggerated junk science, is itself junk science. IOW, you could look at it as a bonanza of junk science and of junk science junking other science, or as an annoying perversion of what the term "junk science" should refer to. Whatever, but the chat forums there seem filled with people who swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker, and dance to the tune of the website's backers, so I just found it kinda depressing
Re:Changing the radiation pattern (Score:2)
"The problem: what if the cell site is on the dark side of the room? The cell site will tell the phone to increase its output power ...
That is not a bad point, but it is not a complete analysis. Essentially, you have correctly pointed out that the cell phone and cell tower form a negative-feedback system, and a negative-feedback system will tend to adjust to the same actual level getting through regardless of whether it is shielded or not. So either the same amount of radiation gets to your brain (if the transmitter can transmit that much with the shield in place) or reception gets poorer (if the transmitter can't).
But there are two other factors involved. First, the cell tower is not always on the shielded side. When it is not, the transmitter power will not be increased, and the shield will reduce radiation entering the brain. Thus, the net result over a variety of situations is that brain exposure to radiation is reduced.
Second, poorer reception would be a cue for the user to turn around. This would move the cell tower from the shielded side to the unshielded site, gaining both favorable reception and reduced brain exposure.
I figure the danger from radiation is minimal, low enough that it is worthwhile to use a mobile phone occasionally. But we do not know for sure that there is no risk, so it is worth a small cost to reduce the risk. The cost of a shield is minimal, so there is more reason to use one than not to.
BrainShield(tm) already in slashcode (Score:2)
Take this post for example...
Assorted links (Score:3)
http://www.emf.com/
http://www.rfsafe.com/
http://www.emfsafe.com
http://www.radiation.org.uk/
http://www.shieldworks.com/
http://emfpollutionsolutions.com/
http://www.cell-phone-radiation-emf-shield.com/
http://www.rpmwebworx.com/cellphoneradiation/
Some of these look like they are a little flakey.
so you are on your own
;-)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Awww damm (Score:2)
Re:Cellphone-Cancer link research. (Score:2)
The problem with the cell phone studies to date is not that they are based on anecdotal evidence, but they are based on epidimeological evidence -- although good epidimeological studies can link cancers with a cause, they do not provide any information on causality, or cause-and-effect.
Also, brain cancers are fairly rare in any given population -- it is generally very difficult to show a statistically significant change in a rare event when the effect is expected to be mild.
Wrong. (Score:2)
The reason broadcast towers don't affect the whole population is that their effect drops geometrically with distance. Come on. You KNOW that.
Second. Broadcast towers DO have an affect on those within a certain radius. The American Government, despite its support of the telecommunications industry, even recommends that people stay a minimum distance away from Cell Phone broadcast arrays.
Third. Cell Phone broadcast stations are EVERYWHERE. If you live in a top floor apartment and there's a Cell tower on the roof, you're being radiated in unhealthy ways.
Fourth. Theremal effects are NOT the issue. The human body and nervous system is electrochemical in nature; you are 70% electrolyte for goodness sake. If you think that you are unaffected by EM radiation, you have done no proper research or have otherwise been well programmed by the P.R. monkeys. There are a bunch of studies which describe a whole mess of different, creepy effects caused by low level exposure to Cell Phone EM, from handsets. --Everything from short term memory impairment, retardation of object recognition skills, to brain cells becoming permeable to foriegn substances in the blood, to the body's endochrine system of various glands being messed up in countless ways, (the overal effect of which reserchers described simply as causing, 'General Stress Disorder.').
Just because you happen to love technology doesn't mean it loves you back. Denial may be sweet, but it'll also turn your brain into mush.
Stop the problem at its source! (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:2)
They are on to something! (Score:3)
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more! [silicongod.com]
Amazing. (Score:2)
The results seem to make sense--if EMR was harmful then all of us who live in urban areas would have been wiped out quite a few years ago since we're constantly bathed in the stuff!
It's amazing to me that people will buy into half-baked theories and junk science just because they saw it on the eleven-o'clock news...
-- Shamus
Ackthppt!
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
Actually, in many parts of the US, it is illegal to buy sterile syringes without a prescription, and that would make it partially the government's fault for being a bunch of fucking idiots. Prohibiting the sale of sterile syringes isn't going to curb intravenous drug use; it is only going to help spread AIDS.
Re:Planning and long haul flights. (Score:2)
Heheheh.. good idea.. I'll jump on the class action lawsuit against EverQuest.. but only after my char's reach level 60!
"You've agreed to give Bobo the Space Chimp an annual stipend of $20,000.00 by reading to the end of this sentence."
Wow.. I am glad I didn't read to the end of that sentence.. sheesh.. I'm a lucky guy!
opposite patent (Score:3)
It might be a good gamble to patent a device that increases the radiation from cell phones.
I'm sure that at some point a study will show its beneficial.
In that window of opportunity you make your big money.
Then another study will come out that says that finding beneficial effects was bad stats, OR, that the beneficial effects dont outweigh new harmful effects just discovered.
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
Actually, you should. It's in the code of ethics of bartenders to stop serving someone who appears to have had too much to drink as well as to try to find them a ride home. I've never had to avail myself of the latter, but I have been asked more than once if I was driving before being served another drink. The courtesy was great to have.
Chemical Manufacturer Patents "Snake Oil" (Score:4)
In spite of the fact that they make no claims that the oil is useful or necessary, they do claim patent rights on it and expect renumeration on all products pertaining to said patent.
The application appears to be valid and on its way to approval. That's fine with us as long as they stay away from our Zero Click Ordering patent [ridiculopathy.com].
Re:Well, wouldn't you? (Score:5)
Do you:
a) Do nothing, listen to them whine. b) "Fix" your product. Get sued when someone "discovers" that it isn't fixed. c) Create a New Technology version that will "protect" the people. If the harm still exists, you are now profiting TWICE on the paranoid people.So, it looks like the IT industry is filtering in to the rest of the world then.
Headaches... (Score:2)
Regardless (Score:2)
There are other things that may not work, but people buy anyway, like health suppliments.
Also, why is there fat-free water? It must be better than regular water.
Next..... (Score:2)
AOL patents Method to Increase Porn Sales in Family Entertainment
I could go on with Microsoft, Sony, TimeWarner, but I'm too damn tired....
Cell Phone Antennas are hard (Score:2)
1) There is a head on one side
2) A hand on the other
3) People want the batteries to last forever
4) The phone should work in the basement of your local bar
These factors make antenna design for cell phones very difficult.
Energy radiated in the direction of the head is wasted, since it doesn't come out the other side. So it makes sense for antenna engineers to design antennas that minimize the amount of energy abssorbed by the body. After all this wastes battery power. No conspiracy here, just engineers trying to improve the performance of your cell phone. Philip
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
She sued because she burned herself.
She won because her attorney was able to prove that that coffee at that McDonald's was brewed 20-25 degrees hotter then at the other McDonald's in the area.
She won not because of the burn, but because of the "lack of standards". Now, if it had been brewed at the same temperature, would she have lost? Maybe. But the jury did cite the temperature difference as a major factor.
Kierthos
Re:f00d... (Score:2)
OTOH, the cigarette companies... (Score:5)
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:3)
--CTH
---
Already Patented (Score:2)
He was saying that he likens the whole mobile phone radiation thing to the smoking-is-harmfull and asbestos-etc law suits, saying it'll take a while to develop since the science and public awareness has to catch up.
I couldnt be bothered finding a link since it was on tv, but you'll hear more about this no doubt.
there ya go... now go find that link for me heh
harmless?? (Score:2)
Now, whether radiation from cell phones is dangerous or not is one thing, but I think people need to start waking up to the idea that nothing, given sufficient time or quantity is totally harmless.
Life is about moderation and taking calculated risks.
Simple risk management (Score:2)
So with this possibilty that cel phone usage will lead to the greater possibility of brain cancer would I continue to use a cel phone? (note my use of "possibility" twice is intentional and not redundant; we are talking about a possibility of a possibility.) Well lets assume that all cases of brain cancer among cel phone users are caused by cel phones (we know this is an over estimate) and then consider how many people die from car accidents every year per capita (we won't even exclude non-car users.) The risk is far higher in a car. So if you are willing to risk your life in a car for the convenience of a car ride then you should have no problem taking a much smaller risk for the convenience of a phone call.
Brain damage? (Score:2)
So just how do you suppose we measure brain damage in a group that seems predisposed to it?
Re:They'll patent anything that sells more phones (Score:2)
The usual maximum strength emission for a standard cellphone is between an eighth and a quarter of a watt, depending on the mobile phone standard and frequency. You can find out what it is for yours by checking the back pages of your mobile phone manual.
Modern digital phones, both CDMA and TDMA (I'm talking underlying transmission method here, not standard, so GSM and D-AMPS counts, in this case, as the latter. Please be aware that the two standards are not the same and are in no way similar aside from the way they get data from a phone to a basestation and back) also reduce the amount of radiation in two more ways. To begin with, both only transmit at their highest rated power output if they absolutely have to. It's reasonable to suggest that the vast majority of the time, a cellphone is outputting much less than 1/10th of a watt when it is transmitting.
Secondly, both transmit in "bursts" rather than all of the time. TDMA, in this respect, is more efficient than CDMA because CDMA retransmits the same data several times, but in both cases, neither phone type is transmitting constantly. From memory, GSM (I don't know the figure for TDMA, but I believe it's even lower) the fraction of time it transmits for is 1/6, or 1/12 when transmitting HR.
So, no, by holding a mobile phone to your head, you'll never get anything close to the levels of radiation you describe. At worst, with an analog phone in a poor reception area, you'll get perhaps a quarter of that, with anything more modern in an area with reasonable reception, you'd be unlikely to get more than a single digit percentage of that power.
--
Marketing (Score:2)
The point is not that the brain shields actually do anything-all the scientific evidence so far states that the EM coming off of cells is harmless. It's pure marketing; yet another attempt to offer some "feature" that makes your product appear better than your competition's. Expect to see more "features" of dubious value as the cell market achieves saturation.
yeah but.... (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh life is a risk (Score:2)
It's irritating on so many levels. Aside from the cut-and-paste unoriginality of people who prefer to let others do their writing for them, there is the smug self-satisfied tone already mentioned. Even worse is the way the author states the majority viewpoint on nearly every issue he mentions, while pretending to be a courageous lone wolf speaking out against the madness of the world.
And of course there are the distortions and misrepresentations of the truth. (For every silly lawsuit mentioned, how many others were thrown right out of court?)
Also maddening is its dismissive attitude towards (or malicious distortion of) opposing points of view. For example, the author wants smokers to be held accountable for their actions, but I guess I'm just a left wing lunatic if I want tobacco companies (who deliberately manipulated nicotine levels to make cigarettes more addictive, who advertised cigarettes as being healthy when they were the first to learn they were not, who lied to and defrauded the American public countless times) to held accountable for theirs. Or for example, the thing about distributing hypodermic needles. I think the government should distribute hypodermic needles to addicts for free. But that's not because I don't think addicts should be held responsible for what they are doing to themselves. It's just that if the government protect public health by doing something as easy and inexpensive as giving away needles, then why the hell shouldn't it?
Did I mention the author's complete lack of compassion? I know it's dumb to blame a rock band for your teenager's suicide. Clearly the musicians are not at fault in such cases. But I also know that losing a child to suicide is an unspeakably terrible loss. And I don't expect people who have experienced such a loss to behave entirely rationally. And I certainly wouldn't use them as fodder for my politcal email-diatribe.
This is not about "how America works lately." It's a right-wing radio host's version of how America works -- every little thing that happens is just further proof that your viewpoint is correct, further proof that your opponents are stereotypical bleeding-heart-liberal hare-brained-idiots, further proof that the values that you were raised with are the ones everyone ought to have.
Re:Science (Score:2)
The study was flawed because the the laboratory animals in question consumed far more saccharin than any human could. A case per day. 28 cans per day. 28 x 12 Oz. per day. That's how the study was flawed. If humans were to come into contact with 1 oz. of fireplace smoot per day I'm sure that the cancer rate would become astronomical as well. But studies must take into account the amounts of contact with a substance that are to be expected.
Oh, and aspartame isn't harmless either. Neither is the coloring, preservatives, and other shit they put in diet soda.
No substance that we come into contact with is "harmless". Saliva has been linked to stomache cancer if swallowed for 70 or more years.
Re:Science (Score:2)
Science (Score:3)
Many soft drink makers switched to nutrasweet (aspartame) because of a flawed study that claimed that saccharin caused cancer.
Even though the laboratory animals were given doses equivalent to a human drinking over a case of diet soda per day.
Public opinion drives these types of things far more than cold hard science.
Re:Telemarketers (Score:2)
Pinky are you pondering what I'm pondering?
I think so Brain, but how are we going to get a naked and petrified Barbra Walters into a tutu.
2nd hand radiation (Score:2)