Slashdot Mirror

Unsurprisingly, there are moves by publishers to try to undermine the trend.

How have you been on /. as long as your ID implies and never learned the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?

Are you just that stupid?

Thanks for the flowers,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

"Apple is exploring cutting-edge technologies that would allow iPhones and iPads to be powered from further away than the charging mats used with current smartphone"

To charge a cell phone over the air - receiving a couple of 100 mA by radio waves in a room with your cell - maybe within 20' distance - you'll need either a concentrated beam to which you expose your cell or have the whole room covered with a very strong RF field maybe similar what the exposure to your head is when listening to your phone which transmits about 1 Watt when sending, which affects your brain:

https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/n...

and potentially creates carcinoms

http://biorxiv.org/content/ear...

- all non-ionizing radiation but affecting cells in bodies exposed to those conditions

Companies are only motivated by maximizing profit not by what is good or bad for people or environment

Here is the pre-print article:

http://www.biorxiv.org/content...

I didn't. :) But just reading the first dozen pages...

It looks like they broke the test rats into groups with 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg exposure, CDMA and GSM, male and female. That's 3*2*2 = 12 groups. For the brain section, they looked for two types of tumors. So now they've got 24 groupings that they're searching for possible correlations.

The statistical significance of the one correlation they found (male, CDMA, 6 W/kg, malignant glioma) was p < 0.05. In other words, due to their limited sample size, just by random chance alone you'd expect such a blip to occur about 1 in 20 times even when there is no real correlation. Well they tried 24 times and got one blip.

Same thing with the heart results. 24 groupings, one blip with p < 0.05, one blip with p = 0.052. Again, almost exactly what you'd expect by pure chance alone.

Mobile phone companies occupy leased space on the electromagnetic spectrum (which as today's big health science report indicates may really be carcinogenic, full study here http://biorxiv.org/content/bio... what a surprise). They displace those frequencies from being available for any other public use and then have the temerity to blow off pushing through android updates because they have to futz with the worthless crapware they add to the phones. It is ridiculous to talk of crowd funding. Maybe instead their frequencies should be taken away and given to local people to run data links instead, and force them to make all the crapware optional so that the update packs are far more generic and easier to build... in fact why can't the build process be automated CI testing style? You should be able to generate your own update packs by hitting some checkboxes on their website, end of story.

I'm not in academia, but I've published a bunch of (mostly IT security) research to be freely read by the public under my own copyright or the copyright of a company that's hired me. My serious question is: what is to prevent individual researchers from just publishing what they have as a PDF or WordPress article on a random site on the Internet? (e.g. are there rules in their contract that says they can only publish through so-and-so service, who has the copyright of academic research, etc.)

In part, this is what preprint servers like arxiv and bioarxiv are for.

However, there are deeper-rooted, cultural issues at play here. Academics are rated on their job performance (for keeping your position, finding tenure-track positions, and later attaining tenure) based upon their peer-reviewed publications. Traditionally, this has meant going through the private, paywalled journals.Likewise, getting grants requires publications in peer-reviewed journals, rather than just posting online.

Now, posting in open access journals (like the PLOS family of journals, PeerJ, etc.) helps here, since at the least the access isn't paywalled. But now the academic / lab itself has to pay a much larger publication fee. (Often on the order of $1500 per article.) Moreover, many of said tenure review panels and grant review committees judge you not just on whether you've published, but where. Impact factor matters, and that again tends to steer people towards glammy, paywalled journals like New England Journal of Medicine (which just made a big kerfluffle about research parasites), Nature, Science, etc.)

So, there's a lot going on here. And even the scientists who want to just post preprints and move on are facing tremendous pressures.