Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Makers Patent "Brain Shields"
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."
No, he stole it from Futurama (Beige Alert people!) who stole that from the Simpsons, who probably stole it from Captain Video who probably stole it from something on the War of the Worlds radio broadcast who probably stole that from something someone tapped out on a telegraph the operator whom I'm certain stole that from a letter written to his wife carried to her by pony express.
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.
Even with the Intel patents on compiler algorithms, GCC 2.96 still comes out on top for optimizations and C/C++ compliancy.
Trolling for GCC 2.96
If you're going to correct facts, at least get them right! The coffee did not fall into her lap when she was handed the cofee. She was holding it between her legs and was pulling off the top and ended up spilling the whole cup into her lap.
I'm constantly wondering about the ignorance of people in electromagnetic wave propagation. The standard cellphone frequencies are below 2GHz, which corresponds to a wavelength of approx. 15cm (1/2ft, for yanks). It means that an effective shield needs to have a diameter in this order of magnitude. All those small "shields" that you can attach to your cellphone merely scatter the waves. Their manufacturers are just taxing the fool.
There may be a middle ground. As in "This product reduces radiation which may cause cancer." The word may in this case is not saying that you may have a certain (1 out of 1000) chance of getting cancer. It is saying that whether radiation causes cancer at all is entirely unknown and it may or may not. The reduction of radiation is easily scientifically verifiable. Whether radiation causes cancer is independent of this.
Hell, I'll give your two for the price of one. CLUE 2
Next time you post to /. try getting your facts straight.
The paranoid have been using these for years ;-)
These guys are serious, they even advertise on various Discovery stations. Here, on this site, you can buy not only an antenna to enhance the signal your cel phome produces, but also a wave scrabmler to reduce your cel phone's signal (cel phone radiation that hurts you only comes out through the earpiece, after all)
Only in America.
The argument was never that the phones didn't produce radiation. It was that the radiation wasn't harmful, and didn't cause brain tumors.
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.
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.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Just remember that life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
In other news: cigarets do not cause cancer.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
"oh no, cellphones will fry our brains! those evil cellphone companies admit it now, they're selling brain shields! sue them!"
"oh no, we wasted our money on brain shields when it turns out that cellphones are harmless or maybe even beneficial! those evil cellphone companies have been ripping us off all this time wth expensive and useless brain shields! sue them!"
Some days you can't win.
--
Radiation, true or not true, they will still be quick to cash in on the fear of the mass public who will buy unneeded things if it promises something that sounds good to them. You could sell most people anything if it claims to calm their fear of something.
IRNI
maybe it is all a ploy by the "beowulf cluster" of cell phones (an advanced AI) to kill us off and take over the planet!
The cell phone manufactorers know about the phone's underground plot and until now had no weapons to fight it!
Seriously..
My tinfoil cap I've been using ever since
the radio tower in Des Moines told me to
join the Backstreet Boys, that's prior art,
man. No fair..
Actually there's no records of him ever saying that although it's often attributed to him.
- MbM
- MbM
Does anyone else see a large shipment of Magic Antenna and Radiation shields arriving at that guys warehouse next to all the 2600 cartirdges, vibrating Mr. Potato-heads and Aura vests? ..
As seen on TV!
(I know of at least one project with Conexant and UCLA directed at using photonic crystals to point cell-phone antenna output away from the head for just this reason.)
If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
CNN reports that Microsoft has admitted to performing research in "hidden TCP/IP compatible surveilance systems," though they still claim that it is unrelated to their hardware line nor their firm stance on privacy protection. They swear that "XP" stands for "Xtra Protection."
also,
MSNBC reports that the RIAA has been hiring outside firms to research in "EMF generation through the use of convetional audio speakers" despite their claim that their "digital signing" technology to be embedded in future audio formats merely disable the playback of the music when a invalid key is detected.
and lastly..
The U.S. government has completed construction of a big fat black cylinder on the White House lawn. The only describable feature of the cylinder is a small 1"x1" AOL logo embossed on its side. The president has commented in regards to the (new) addition as saying "Oh, that old thing? The boys down at NASA tell me that's for ozone detection." Upon being told that a similar object was seen in an episode of "The X-Files," he replied, "What? Aliens? Ha ha! Everyone knows there's no such thing, and besides, if there were, we could pull a McVeigh on them now if they tried to land here! I mean..er.. don't mess with Texas?"
--
You betcha! Thanks!
It's the witty oneline insults that make me keep coming back to Slashdot! Leet! Keep it up, gents!
--
Yum! Keep it up, old chap! Right-o!
All I can say to that is damn, am I jealous of my dear mother! Ha ha!
--
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?
and that is the problem. Listen, you can dismiss this poster if you wish, but that does not mean that everything is just peachy. The litigousness of this country is, in my view, one of the greatest threats to this country. You may think it has no impact, but if you were either in a position of a responsibility or a little more perspective you'd realize that it impacts you too. These are much more than just isolated incidents.
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.
"No time for play", The Economist
Irrelevant? Hardly.
And diarrhea. Just the thought of applying the latest Service Pack, even on a test machine with good backups at hand, gives me the shits.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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
Remember Amalek.
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
Remember Amalek.
i don't know about you folks, but i don't want cancer anywhere in my head, 'cause it has a habit of spreading. or anywhere in my body, come to think of it...
Just raise the taxes on crack.
doesn't the wavelength matter as much as the emitted power? these things are shooting microwaves... and there's some sort of inverse square relationship between wavelength and emitted power that i don't remember. something like 1 watt at 30 MHz is nothing like 1 watt at 1800 MHz (sorry, i majored in philosophy, i don't remember the equation and don't feel like looking it up. in my discipline, we're still figuring out whether or not you exist. cut me some slack).
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Another thing I heard about this cases was that one of the reasons the monitary reward for this "hot coffee" case so large is that there had been many previous complaints by customers that the coffee was being served too hot and those complaints were ignored.
Nothing new here when it comes to a large company knowing that something is wrong with a product and ignoring it...
Ford Motor Company did the same thing regarding the gas tanks on their Pinto. They knew there was a risk of the tank exploding if the car was hit from behind but instead they figured the legal consequences were cheaper than fixing the gas tank. In the end they ended up having to recall their Pintos and put plastic liners inside the gas tank to fix the problem. Cost them quite a bit between the lawsuits and all of the recalls as I recall.
As much as I'd like to believe that the cell phone companies care about my health, and the potential risks of EMF damage.. just because they have announced "safety" products to shield users from fields DOES NOT mean that they believe there is some risk.
It simply means that there is a market for a "protection" device - for the paranoid and the educated users alike. I.e. now that we've sold everyone cell phones, let's sell them something else.
In my opinion there is still a reasonable chance that EMF in some way contributes to cancer, but it's still debatable if the effect is strong enough to worry about or not.
__ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
You can actually. At least alpha, and I guess even beta particles aren't very good at penetrating your skin.
It says fallout, not radiation.
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
Of course they'll patent "brain shields". If the media suddenly starts telling people that blue cars are more likely to kill you so they can sell more ads/newspapers/hits (and lets face it that's what the real problem here is), then gm is gonna make less blue cars, doesn't mean they're admitting that there's a problem.
--Gfunk
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Just because they create a shield, doesn't automatically mean it's harmful.
That's like the pathetic argument that if you give kids condoms, they'll have more sex. It's total crap.
They'll sell them to people who want them, no matter whether they need them or not.
I've seen some middle-aged women who go through diet soda like there's no tomorrow. Yeah, I know it's a stereotype, but walk into any office building; you'll see for yourself. The best part is, they won't drink coffee because it has too much caffeine.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Gee. A device designed to take a modulated electric signal and turn it into sound...takes a modulated electric signal and turns it into sound.
Fucking amazing.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
see, there is the rub, before you might even ask somebody if they are driving, they have already consumed enough alchoal to inhibit their decision making ability, as well as cordination. I, for one, congraulate you for your ethics, but I also think that you are by no way responsible for the patron if they drink, and drive. you have no way of knowing if they will drive.
Radiation falls into three main categories:
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...
Two points :
:-) say it's completely "safe", I'll think I'll stick with my judgement and avoid the headaches.
Point 1
I used to have an ericsson analog (AMPS) phone, and used to call home from a contractors camp once a day, for about 30 minutes. I found that after 30 minutes of chitchat, I'd get a bit of a headache - nothing spectacular, just a dull throb, but the fact was - no call home, no headache. Then one day I was sitting in the metal door frame of my room, talking on the phone - I rested my hand against the doorframe , and got a tingle. I expermiented a bit :
Talk - tingle
Talk, talk - tingle, tingle
I decided not to use the phone after that.
I now use a cdma phone, and only with a car kit with a big-ass antenna way out on the back of the car.
Point 2
With all the talk about non-ionising radiation from cellphones being just that and being harmless (except for heating effects), I'd like to put forward the point that a few chemical reactions in the body work very well using non-ionising radiation as a catylst. How your eyes work is one good example. Eyes work by light striking rods and cones at the back of your eye and causing chemical chain reactions which send a message to your brain saying "Hey! a few photons just hit me!"
These photons are non-ionising (being just normal visible light), but still do the job just fine thanks. How many more chemical reactions in your body could be susceptible to such things?
So, I don't know about you, but if something gives me a headache after use, and "they"
** Windows has detected a mouse movement.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
I have the same reaction. Except it seems to happen when OTHER people use their cell phones near me.
"This despite their consistent claims that cell phone radiation is harmless."
This reminds me of how the nuclear industry first gets forced to apply a much higher security standard than any other power industry, and then the same people take their extreme security systems as an indication of how unsafe it has to be.
It's not unlike some school bullying I've seen. It's also pretty off topic, I know...
There have been zillions of studies done, that all found that ionizing radiation (like UV, X ray) can cause cancer and they also all found no evidence that non-ionizing radiation (like that from radio transmitters, phones, microwave ovens) caused cancer.
I take that as pretty strong evidence that microwaves cause little more than problems associated with heating effects and not cancer.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
I never said it was 'safe' because evidence could not be found that microwaves cause cancer.
TV's actually emit a lot worse that microwaves. They emit low frequency EMR which supposedly causes leukemia, and they actually emit small amounts of x-rays! Cancer causing ionizing radiation.
Although PC monitors emit much lower amounts due to safety standards, I can't wait till LCD flat panels are truely within financial reach to everyone who would otherwise buy a CRT.
The mobile phone you have been using these past few years, is most likely safer than all the televisions your family have been watching through the past decades.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Do the bloody research. It's all out there. It only takes an evening or two.
i on/rfpresentation/nonionizing/nonionizing2handout. html
m
I have done. In my work with Navy RADAR equipment, and my interest in HAM radio, going back 13 years. I left the Navy as a civilian in Electronic Weapons, RADAR/Fire Control, fearing for my future health. But not because of RF radiation, because of the asbestos and chemicals used that are the biggest culprit in long term illness and death in that field.
Can you please point me to some links to studies that show undeniable proof that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer?
You've been bought and sold by the media. They love scare value stories. You are much more likely to hear a "mobile phones cause cancer" story on the news than you are a "mobile phones don't cause cancer" story.
Not only is the typical mobile phone frequency range well below the typical ionizing frequency range where UV, x-rays and gamma-rays hang out, but mobile phone power levels are also astronomically below the levels required to ionize at their frequency. They could ionize, if thier power levels were far FAR greater.
http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiat
It has been known since about 1904 that exposure to ionizing radiation causes elevated risks of cancer, yet amongst all these same studies to date, no conclusive evidence has been found showing non-ionizing radiation to also cause a cancer risk.
http://www.labor.state.ak.us/lss/pads/ionizing.ht
Even if non-ionizing radiation can elevate cancer risk, it would seem to be at an extremely miniscule level given the lack of evidence.
As an interesting tidbit, almost all of the men in my dept who had children, had girls. It was not a small group and the ratio was astounding. This could possibly be an effect of the RF, but I'm not talking about 0.6 - 2 Watt 900MHz phones here, I'm talking eyeball popping, 1 MegaWatt 30GHz RADAR, which may well be ionizing. ; )
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
My original point stands, though.
I don't doubt there are other bad effects, and I have already heard of these problems.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
A guy I know used his cell everyday for 6 months. The he had cancer right where the antenna emmited.
He had it removed, and now has a plate in his head.
People have been dying from cancer throughout the ages! And there are a lot of people using mobile phones around the World. All you need, is some scare monger news story, some person who has cancer either on the side of thier head or near where they store thier phone and you instantly have some non-scientific, knee jerk reactions from people who think they "know that this phone caused thier cancer".
Think about how many people get cancer every year with or without the usage of cell phones. An enormous ammount of people. Now, all you need, is someone with cancer, desperately looking for answers as to why they have it, who just so happened to own a cell phone. Never mind the fact that they probably did'nt take care of thier health with good eating and exercise, or perhaps had cancer in the family, or maybe even subjected thier body to smoking and alcohol. No, of course, it must be the phone that is emitting 600 milliwatts of non ionizing radiation that did it!
Taking into consideration the ammount of people that get cancer, and taking into consideration the ammount of people that use cell phones, there is a huge chance that people are going to get cancers on their heads or near the place they hold thier phone, and then accept no other explanation than "the phone caused my cancer", due to the fucking bullshit scare mongering we are subjected to by the mass media.
I recently saw a news item on TV (Sydney, Australia), that was showing a male Aussie farmer who had breast cancer. He said that he "knew for a fact that the phone caused his cancer", because he carried his phone in his shirt pocket. The funny bit was that the news showed him on his tractor, with the phone in his left pocket, and yet in the surgery, the doctor was examining his right breast.
The news is happy to ignore science to scare people into watching thier channel, so as to improve ratings and thus drive advertisment prices and thus thier revenue up.
Hey, if you want to believe the big companies, and use nicotine, nutra-sweet and cell phones.
Please do for the sake of humanity.
I don't believe the big companies, I don't use nicotine or bladder cancer causing artificial sweeteners and drink alcohol for that matter.
The fact is, that since about 1904, there have been heaps of non "big Co. funded" studies done in which NO evidence could be found showing that non ionizing radiation caused cancer.
There have been shitloads of studies showing nicotine to cause cancer, yet somehow the phone companies have a better stranglehold on free speech and university studies than does the MEGA tobacco industry? GET SERIOUS!
With all the independant scientific studies coming up negative on this subject, I know where I stand. I'm not going to be one of the fat fucks who mold into the couch, eating cancer causing food, not getting enough exercise, smoking and drinking, accepting everything that the idiot box tells them as gospel.
You have a brain, put it to some use and judge things for yourself.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
All this is doing is changing the radiation pattern coming out of the phone. Not only will this likely do little to stop any RF heating caused by the phone, it could very well be counter-productive.
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.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I've seen this discussion come up a few times lately in social situations and most people just don't get it it. At all.
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.
"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.
Actually, most scientists 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.
>They've run out of things to talk about, right?
I only wish.
-ct
...were intelligent enough to realize that getting into the business of investing in various produects that help get over cigarette addiction was a DUMB idea.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
The debate over whether electromagnetic fields cause cancer has been debated for quite some time. Most often cited as examples of this connection between electromagnetic waves and cancer are power lines and people who live next to them who get disproportionately more weird cancers than the rest of the population. One theory that's popped up recently to explain this is that it's not the EM radiation from that power lines directly causing the cancer, but that the electric lines ionize the nasty pollution in the air, thus allowing the harmful particles to stick to human body parts like lungs far easier than they otherwise could in an unionized state. A few studies done supporting this theory showed that people who lived downwind from the power lines were more likely than average to get cancer. Could it be possible that it's not the EM radiation from cell phones that's directly causing cancer, but instead indirectly causing it through manipulation of environmental carcinogens?
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).
It is hard to imagine a more definitive study in a real population, so those people who jump to explain this away show their lack of interest in actual evidence.
...that when you install one of these things, or rap your mobile in tinfoil, or whatever, the phone circuitry has a tendancy to say to itself "Hmm, not a good signal here. I'll just up the old transmission strength". Ater all, that's good engineering.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Cell Phones do not cause brain tumors. It's been scientifically proven, but most of us know that. My grandfather worked with EM (RF or whatever) emissions for all of his life and he didn't get cancer. The levels of RF he was using (and I too as a ham) are many times higher then a puny Nokia phone. Those typically only have abut 1-2 watts out, but no more then 5 watts. I use a 5 Watt handheld radio daily and a 25 watt base (with the antenna inside even...damn antenna restrictions) regularly with no ill effects. If that ain't proof I dunno what is. Those "shields" as seen on TV just plain don't work as intended and neither does the other goofy thing that goes with it, the internal antenna dohicky. Sure parasitic elements can help redirect your signal in a certain direction, but boost your reception? Doubtful. Even if, when in transmit mode which on a cell phone is pretty steady, the gain you'd get from those parasitic elements would be minimal.
Gorkman
I, for one, appreciate getting 190F (or thereabouts) coffee that actually stays hot on the drive into work. Shall we outlaw tea, since the water needs to be boiling (212F) when it is poured?
Or maybe people should recognize that hot beverages (amazingly enough) are HOT.
I can stop wrapping my nads in copper foil because I keep my StarTac in my pocket?
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Umm...wouldn't the people who tend to buy these - as opposed to seeking out comparisons of exactly how much radiation each model of cell phone puts out, so they can stick to ones that are within safe limits (as determined by groups not on the cell phone industry's payroll) - tend to be the people who don't need to worry about protecting that organ?
Well of course they'll insist that phones aren't harmful and get a patent on 'brain sheilds'. If phones were harmful, no one would give them money. And if they didn't have a patent on 'brain shields', they couldn't make money from a stupid, no-brainer idea off other companies. Money, fella's. That's what it's all about. Money...and brain sheilds.
Now here's the real question: why would they even create brain sheilds? If they rot our brains with phones, we'll be more likely to buy crappy cell/pcs plans at high rates for few minutes and no roaming features. Guess they didn't think that one through enough after all.
Oops.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
...It gives people what they want. If their wants are based on reason, the market will provide it; if they are based on ignorance, pseudoscience, or technophobic hysteria (e.g. homeopathic "medicines," shoes with magnets, or brain shields for cell phones), the market will provide it too.
By the way, that is not what happened. The coffee did not fall; the woman placed the cup between her legs and then removed the lid--the main thing reinforcing the cup against the inward pressure of her legs!--so she could add cream and sugar. (The intent to add condiments is from memory, but the rest is documented at this page of the 'Lectric Law Library.) The car was driven by her grandson--which makes me wonder a bit about natural selection.
To answer your question: government shouldn't distribute free hypodermics because that's not a legitimate function of government. (Admittedly, neither is the vast majority of what the US government does.)
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
Half of your customer base is completely paranoid that your product is radiating their heads, but they still insist on using your product.
- --
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.
-----------------------------------------------
brain shield, to prevent the dreaded brain clouds, of course
"This despite their consistent claims that cell phone radiation is harmless."
Meanwhile, our wireless equipment at work comes with warnings about staying at least two feet away from the face of it when it's in use.
We asked the manufacturers about it and they said, well, it's really only about as much radiation as a cellphone.
Steve
[ approaching AI ]
Using a cell phone might be dangerous. It might not. Research seems to indicate that it is not dangerous but research has been wrong before. In other words by using a mobile phone you are taking a risk.
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.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
It's really cool. I saw a few on eBay but DAMNIT I invented it first!
BR You need to pull it down so that it toches the top of your ear when you use a cellphone, otherwise the benefits are lost. Itreally works! Honest!
Haven't you seen the television commercial with the nifty animations and the "Chiropractor" chick? If you buy their "micromineature circuitry-based" Internal Antenna, they'll throw in The Wave Scrambler! According to the animation, this little sticker deflects the harmful waves away from your head when applied to the speaker of a cell phone!
Seems to me that the thousands of UFO-nuts who are wrapping tinfoil around their heads constitute prior art.
You don't have to do research to know that a cellular phone cannot possibly give you brain cancer in any known way.
First of all the total amount of energy given off is very small. It runs off of a single battery.
Secondly, the amount of energy per photon is also very small. Much less than that of visible light.
So even performing research on such a bogus claim is a waste of money. And anyone stupid enough to research such a thing without first knowing that it is pointless is probably a very bad scientist.
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.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The fact is they're in the business of selling things. If they can sell cell phones, they will. If they can sell cell phones with radiation shielding for more money, so be it. It's simple economics. All this means is that they realize there's money to be made in radiation shielded cell phones, whether or not it actually causes cancer is irrelevant as people obviously think it does and are willing to pay money to avoid it.
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
The slogan then comes on screen: Are you protected?
Ahh, the entertainment that is possible when you crank up the FUD machine...
--
< )
( \
X
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
I got my mental EM spectrum diagram around the wrong way. Duh. Ignore everything I just said.
they might have just pattened these so they could sue the arse off of anyone who creates one. After all, every successfull sale of such a device would be a walking advertisement against cellular telephones. If a lot of people _think_ there is a serious danger in using cell phones, it will be just as bad for business as if there really is.
`which fortune`
Consider this: Aprox. 50% of cell phone users own them for emergency purposes/safety seems pretty obvious to make something to profit even more off of them.
Life, Meaning of; 1. 42 2. to live (see p41; living, How to) Additional Information; Sexually transmitted; a
... causes the humming. A system designed to pick up RF radiation and turn it into sound is going to do just that. Your stereo SHOULD be filtering out that garbage, but it isn't.
Conclusion? You either purchased an inexpensive, poor quality stereo or you have an expensive, high quality stereo that is solely in need of repair or replacement.
Take this post for example...
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 comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Best watch out for Deep vain thrombosis, and they known that long haul flights might cause DVT since day one. all Americans get your layers ready.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!
HUH?!
Everybody had to stay happy or the party would die off and the mind over matter/antimater containment field would have become "bummed out"
So they issued a green alert and had Jello shooters.
And I was enjoying the slow roast of my ear in case of a dire emergency where i was stuck for nothing to eat...
On the other hand, you have fingers
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.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Hahaha. You're so funny that you aren't funny at all, and that takes talent!
Go Kathryn Thurber!
You've been bought and sold.
Do the bloody research. It's all out there. It only takes an evening or two.
Cell phone radiation messes you, the lab rats, and everybody else who uses them right up.
But there's reasonable risk and then there's unreasonable. And Cell Phone irradiaion is a risk which has been 'chosen' society-wide by the underinformed. --More accurately, it was chosen for us by the telecommunications industry. (How DID we manage to get along before without Cell Phones?)
The fact of the matter is that the dangers of Cell Phone EM are known to all the major players, but are not reported.
Second. I use a land line, and I won't be buying into any Blue Tooth technology. But that doesn't mean I won't be radiated constantly by ignorant 'risk-takers' all around me. And when Blue Tooth becomes standard, just try getting a job in a non-EM toxic building.
Your 'whatever' attitude and embracing of general ignorance may serve to reduce your own worry, but I think society could be managed much more responsibly.
So pardon me for making you 'sick and tired' with 'crazy' extremism. Just because you like to swallow the lies and live a manipulated life doesn't mean everybody else is content to do so.
Rant over.
You may now return to your slumber.
Following are points from a number of studies.
Lab rats were found to have their short term memory impaired after being exposed to electromagnetic radiation (EM) at frequencies and amplitudes common in portable phones, markedly affecting their performance in a maze after 1 hour/day periods of EM exposure. In a second experiment designed to measure the time needed to complete a maze task, it was estimated that exposed animals required approximately one third more time than the control rats. {1}
Using an apparatus which tested for object recognition, researchers found that exposed rats suffered observable memory loss after EM radiation exposure. This test was done in 1994 specifically testing the effects of portable phones. {2}
The blood-brain barrier in test animals is made permeable to foriegn substances in the blood which would not normally be allowed to pass through brain cell walls. This, according to one group of researchers, was discovered when dye was injected into the blood stream of test rats and found to be absorbed by brain cells in exposed rats after twenty minutes, but not by those in the unexposed control group.{3}
The general effect of EM on the endochrine system, (the system of glands throughout the body, including the adrenal, thyroid and pancreatic among others,) is also noteworthy. The results from a variety of studies were lengthy and, frankly, difficult to briefly document as it seems different glands react to different frequencies and power levels in a wide variety of ways, sometimes having opposite effects simply by changing the pulse rate of a given wave form. Research only scratches the surface, and it seems that the potential for further study is enormous. Essentially, EM radiation as emitted from Cell Phones, pagers, wireless computer hardware and computer monitors does a wide range of strange things to the human body. One researcher simply summed up the overall effect of EM on the glandular system as resulting in, 'general stress disorder'. {4}
Delta Wave sleep patterns of test subjects were found to be inhibited after regular exposure, (one hour per day), to frequencies and power levels commonly emitted from computer monitors and in other tests, higher frequency portable phones. {5}
--With a drive for faster, cheaper and higher power wireless digital equipment, the general public might be well advised to remain cautious of the possible health hazards associated with the increased use of microwave active devices.
In the few instances where the large telecommunications companies have been challenged regarding the safety of their products, it is interesting to note that their public relations stances have been remarkably similar to those once commonly employed by the cigarette industry concerning tobacco use. It will be interesting to observe the direction and ultimate outcome of these trends.
References:
1. Henry Lai, 1998. Neurological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation Presented to the Workshop on possible biological and health effects of RF electromagnetic fields. Project team: Mobile Phones and Health, Symposium, October 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Austria. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/henrylai.ht m
2. James C. Lin, 2000. Effects of microwave and mobile telephone exposure on memory and memory processes. University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA http://www.eecs.uic.edu/eecspeople/lin_ieee42_3.ht m
3. Frey A.H., Feld S, Frey B. Neural function and behavior: defining the relationship. Ann NY Acad Sci 247:433-438
4. Dr. Robert Becker & Dr. Andrew Marino paper, "Electromagnetism & Life" http://www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC .html
5. Drumanskiy, Yu.D., Sandala, M.G. 1974. The biologic action and hygenic significance of electromagnetic fields of superhigh and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. In Biologic effects and health hazards of microwave radiation, p. 289. Warsaw: Polish Medical Publishers.
Here's some info for you to chew on if you're interested. . .
Following are points from a number of studies.
Lab rats were found to have their short term memory impaired after being exposed to electromagnetic radiation (EM) at frequencies and amplitudes common in portable phones, markedly affecting their performance in a maze after 1 hour/day periods of EM exposure. In a second experiment designed to measure the time needed to complete a maze task, it was estimated that exposed animals required approximately one third more time than the control rats. {1}
Using an apparatus which tested for object recognition, researchers found that exposed rats suffered observable memory loss after EM radiation exposure. This test was done in 1994 specifically testing the effects of portable phones. {2}
The blood-brain barrier in test animals is made permeable to foriegn substances in the blood which would not normally be allowed to pass through brain cell walls. This, according to one group of researchers, was discovered when dye was injected into the blood stream of test rats and found to be absorbed by brain cells in exposed rats after twenty minutes, but not by those in the unexposed control group.{3}
The general effect of EM on the endochrine system, (the system of glands throughout the body, including the adrenal, thyroid and pancreatic among others,) is also noteworthy. The results from a variety of studies were lengthy and, frankly, difficult to briefly document as it seems different glands react to different frequencies and power levels in a wide variety of ways, sometimes having opposite effects simply by changing the pulse rate of a given wave form. Research only scratches the surface, and it seems that the potential for further study is enormous. Essentially, EM radiation as emitted from Cell Phones, pagers, wireless computer hardware and computer monitors does a wide range of strange things to the human body. One researcher simply summed up the overall effect of EM on the glandular system as resulting in, 'general stress disorder'. {4}
Delta Wave sleep patterns of test subjects were found to be inhibited after regular exposure, (one hour per day), to frequencies and power levels commonly emitted from computer monitors and in other tests, higher frequency portable phones. {5}
--With a drive for faster, cheaper and higher power wireless digital equipment, the general public might be well advised to remain cautious of the possible health hazards associated with the increased use of microwave active devices.
In the few instances where the large telecommunications companies have been challenged regarding the safety of their products, it is interesting to note that their public relations stances have been remarkably similar to those once commonly employed by the cigarette industry concerning tobacco use. It will be interesting to observe the direction and ultimate outcome of these trends.
References:
1. Henry Lai, 1998. Neurological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation Presented to the Workshop on possible biological and health effects of RF electromagnetic fields. Project team: Mobile Phones and Health, Symposium, October 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Austria. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/henrylai.ht m
2. James C. Lin, 2000. Effects of microwave and mobile telephone exposure on memory and memory processes. University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA http://www.eecs.uic.edu/eecspeople/lin_ieee42_3.ht m
3. Frey A.H., Feld S, Frey B. Neural function and behavior: defining the relationship. Ann NY Acad Sci 247:433-438
4. Dr. Robert Becker & Dr. Andrew Marino paper, "Electromagnetism & Life" http://www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC .html
5. Drumanskiy, Yu.D., Sandala, M.G. 1974. The biologic action and hygenic significance of electromagnetic fields of superhigh and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. In Biologic effects and health hazards of microwave radiation, p. 289. Warsaw: Polish Medical Publishers.
Pardon me while I quote myself: (No need to write these things twice when the flawed premise I'm addressing is the same!):
It is widely acknowledged that the peer review system in the scientific community is hugely subject to bias and even corruption based on status, favoritism and funding concerns. How likely are old scientists who have spent their lives supporting one theory, who have investors pouring millions into said theory, who have their egos tied up with the same theory. . . how likely is it that they are going to immediately support an opposing view point which might reduce their status, livelihood and sense of self-worth? And in the case of Very Big Business which is the Cell Phone market, the problem is further aggravated. --I've read papers which have received huge funding from governments and arms of Telecommunications giants which spent huge sums of money to buy names and discredit some of the very studies I quoted above. These kinds of problems have hampered the advancement of science for centuries in one form or another. Personally, I really LIKE the fact that the internet allows me to read papers which would otherwise never get published, because it allows me to form my own opinions.
I suggest you read through some of the self-published material in order to form your own opinions too, rather than base your beliefs on biased popularity contests. It's important to think for yourself.
The simple fact that you hold this job without actually knowing or even caring about any effects which your employers tell you are not worth worrying about means you have been programmed. Period.Think for yourself rather than trying to maintain a worry-free attitude through denial. Remember, in the long run, it makes no difference to me. --I've offered you enough ideas here to get you started. Where you go from here is up to you. I would recommend a thorough review of what you know, and that you initiate your own investigations into the matter. But if you want to go back to sleep, that's your choice too.
It's up to you. Personally, I think denial is fundamentally self-defeating and unworthy of any respect. But that's just my opinion. Good luck and goodbye.
-Fantastic Lad
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.
A "heavy duty for freezer/barbeque" aluminum foil beret will block 97% of the mind control rays that cause American consumers to use cell phones. Remember, don't use the cheap stuff, or for the rest of your unfortunate existence you'll be jumping to obey our alien so-called masters at the sound of the first nine notes of Fur Elise (and that's if you're lucky).
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
Oh, great sig...you really suck, and I mean that literally! How I am going to explain these pictures to the network adiministrator if he goes over the weblogs. As if there weren't enough goatse.cx trolls around :-(
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
It's called a Farraday Cage. Been around for a Century. How can you patent this thing? Some moron at the Patent Office who only studied Law and never took freshman Physics (or even High School Physics) will think this is a great idea and grant the patent. Then the phone companies will extend the patent to cover any electronic device in a metal box ie. computers or car radios or any of a million other devices.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Imagine for a second a brainshield that stopped idiots from expressing whats in their brain! I could go outside again, maybe even stop getting chain letters!
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more!
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more!
I remember a while back when there was this whole power line scare (it was thought that power lines were causing leukemia in young children in a certain town in the US). So a researcher did some tests on the effects of highly concentrated EMR (the kind generated by power lines and cell phones--not gamma rays mind you!) on living tissue--and found that it did absolutely nothing to the living tissue.
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!
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.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
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.
Microsoft, AOL, Apple and infomercials have been doing this for years, and all hold patents on devices built to cater to the general public's stupidity/ignorance/paranoia...
How many people here own childproof medicine bottles, without having actual children?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Maybe its just paranoia, but I find using my cell phone for more than half an hour or so gives me a headache. My nokia gets really hot, so maybe that has something to do with it and not evil radiation. Of course it could just be because of the person on the other end too, who knows?
It doesn't matter if cellphone radiation is actually damaging. What matters is that these things will sell, simply because of public curiousity/fear/uncertainty/doubt (CFUD?).
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.
Philip Morriss patents Method To Decrease Lung Capacity
AOL patents Method to Increase Porn Sales in Family Entertainment
I could go on with Microsoft, Sony, TimeWarner, but I'm too damn tired....
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
Snu?
I mean, other then the fact that if you're talking on a cell phone, you're talking and not eating, I can see that. But I can't see Mr. Stomach shutting down digestion because you're yakking away on a Nokia or something.
How is it any different from talking on a normal phone? Or just talking? The radiation emitted by the cell phone? Sorry, don't buy it.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
This is explains why 95% of the disturblingly thin women I see walking about downtown are always yammering away on cell phones about the most mindless topics. They've run out of things to talk about, right?
end communication
...gave their customers the option of filtered cancer sticks decades ago.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Every time a telemarketer calls to sell me a cell phone, I tell them that Barbra Walters on 20/20 said that cell phones give you cancer. They quiet down, no one wants to call Barbra Walters a liar.
Now I guess the telemarketers have a little ammunition.
i was watching the news today, and there was a section on this concerning some british scientist who reckons he invented the shields, and he's filing a law suit or some such a thing.
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
"Before you critisize someone walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you do critisize them you'll be a mile away and
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.
the tobacco industry claimed that Ciggerettes were non-addictive, the Energy and Power commission claimed that High Tension Power Lines didn't cause cancer (despite almost overwealming proof otherwise), and The NRC said the actual chance of a Nuclear Meltdown is so slim, we are likly never to see it.
People lie for money, and the communications industry has enough money to buy a lot of truth.
Regardless of what they say, most Cell Phones (and Cell Phone Towers) transmit and recieve signals in the low microwave freq's (low in frequency not in amount of exposure). Sure its not as bad as sticking your head in a Microwave oven, but long term (I'd say 5-10yr+) exposure to that level of even low frequency microwave radiation will cause a huge jump in cancer. Esp cancers of the head, neck, and throat.
the numbers will start rolling in in the next few years, mark my words.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
Call me crazy, but if a mobile (cell) phone were to be shielded in some way then the phone would simply increase the power in order to get to get the signal through, giving out the same amount of radiation but with reduced efficiency. The only thing that would be affected would be how long the batteries last.
Perhaps I'm less cynical than most (which would be a suprise to me) but I don't believe this is solely a p/r stunt. Of course when discussing possible harm from cel phones the cel phone companies are always going to put their best foot forward; they will always display the research that suggests that there is no correlation between brain cancer and cel phone use (I'm sure if there were a study that suggested a negitive correlation they would use that one.) But the decision makers of the cel phone companies still know the important point that with out a proper long term controlled experiment (not a study) nothing can be proved one way or another and nothing is known. There is still a chance that the cel phone companies are liable for peoples deaths. So what does a good decision maker do? Just what the article suggests they are doing: you hedge your bets. Even on the safest of car rides with the best of drivers a smart decision maker still puts on a seat belt. This is the same situation. They probably aren't responible and the probably aren't liable but just on the off chance that they are they are trying to minimize the damage - and when I say damage I mean liability. They seem like different situations because one is about the chance of future event and the other is the truth about a past event but ultimatly both are the same situation to a decision maker.
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.
... i think this infringes on my patent of electro magnetic wave technology. while we're at it, i would also like to address the following entities: the sun - bad! you are freely distributing my intellectual property, as well as deflamatory UV radiation! this must be halted immediately or i will be forced to take further steps. the moon - ditto, you are an accessory to the above infringements, and if these actions are not stopped i will be forced to begin formentioned action fire - do you really think that just by being famous for centuries, and aiding man to rise above the level of animals, you have the right to blatently produce electro magnetic waves? i think not. attached is a court order, ordering you to cease and dissist immeditely. thank you for your time. thomas edison - sir, i find your recent invention, this so called 'light bulb', to be a implemention of the technology that i have patented and intentionally sat on until the market appears more favorable to accept it. therefore, i insist that you provide me with all technology regarding this device, and hand over all manufacturing facilities and stock to me. the simpsons - yeah you know you had it comming. what give you the right to sit on my tv and emit electro magnetic radiation of any frequency at any time in the name of 'creativity'. obserd! excellent
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
The SLUDGE REPORT? The guy who pulls rumors out of his ass and pastes them as God's truth for FAUX NEWS to rehash for their slack-jawed redneck viewers? The same FAUX NEWS that took some weak practical jokes from Clinton's staff and turned them into rampaging vandalism and wild-eyed thievery by Ari Fleisher? The same FAUX NEWS that ignored George Worthless Bush's own disclaimers against the vandalism slander in its quest for caustic empty-headed empty-ethics yellow-journalism? The same FAUX NEWS that later showed a slightly cluttered yet clean office as proof from Heaven that they weren't just shameless frauds without an iota of journalistic skills, ethics, and standards? The same FAUX NEWS which has forgotten to ask for PROOF or EVIDENCE or even considered INVESTIGATIONS before SLANDERING without pause?
Sorry, I try to avoid crooks & witless con-artists like the Republican party at all costs. It's a fault of having morals and an education; which I see you are unhindered by.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
Why is this issue such a problem? We know how much radiation these things give off (or at least, we could find out very easily). We know that the radiation messes about with some of the stuff inside our head (e.g. water molecules and presumably, to some extent, DNA). We also know (or again, could find out, or could calculate without difficulty) by how much our skulls should reduce the amount of radiation penetrating into our brains. We know how many DNA strands (give or take a power of ten, maybe) our heads comprise of, and how those DNA strands are built, and therefore we should know how much energy you need to put into one to start changing its structure and possibly make it cancerous... and so on.
My point being that there should be no reason whatsoever why a few biochemists armed with the right equipment and a little time (no doubt easily provided for by the amount of money that governments, and presumably mobile phone companies, are pumping into this kind of thing right now), shouldn't be able to produce a few numbers, with errors. None at all. Don't give me all that crap about how completely unpredictable it would all be - we have a huge amount of knowledge about what's going on here. Then we'd have a real idea of whether the radiation given off by these things is (a) Extremely dangerous (i.e. short term use can lead to cancer - seemingly not very evident), (b) Dangerous over extended use (half an hour a day pressed against our skulls for 15 years, anyone?) or (c) Completely insignificant. Then we could educate the public and shut the press up once and for all.
And yes, to be honest, I'm sure that someone's already done this. It's probably the mobile companies best interests to keep the whole thing under cover, and in the medias interests to carry on printing endless inconclusive articles about the issue. In the meantime, I'll carry on making do with my landline and save my money, thankyou very much.
Is that if you put on a shield, you eliminate all signals in that direction. So if you totally shield the phone, you have no signal, and therefore no conversation. If you partially shield the phone, there is EM radiation in some direction. Now, what if your head is in between the line from cell phone to cell tower? Great job that "shielding" does! Or, if you are on the cell phone and you make a turn, and the shielding intersects the transmission signal... ooops!
Let's try practical engineering before social FUD, please.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Let's not forget the scaremongers who jumped on the evils of the fatlike olestra in potato chips. They caused "cramping" and other bowel issues in people who ate them, supposedly. (Lays still have a disclaimer.)
Then came a large study that showed that people who ate olestra chips had FEWER incidents than people who ate normal chips. That shows the fine line of idiocy and how readily people who want to get their face in front of the camera are to decry any thing.
Now let's all go and make sure every last thing from Kyoto gets installed....
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
And does "same type of radiation" mean same intensity as well as wavelength?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
So just how do you suppose we measure brain damage in a group that seems predisposed to it?
About a year or so ago, "The Wave Scrambler" was hawked on some infomercial. Supposedly, by sticking the adhesive device over the speaker on your cell phone it bounces all waves away from your head. This is dumb, useless, etc. because it is not the source of any real radiation, the antenna is!!!
I know for a fact however, you can DEFINITE BE BURNED by radio frequencies
Also, I remember that you should get a cell-phone w/ a <1 Watt/Kg emission rating. Motorola Star-Tac phones seem to be the lowest overall of all popular brands. Analog emits much more power than digital phones do.
How about this other stupid product, the "Internal Antenna" it supposedly boost reception too. This thing cannot possibly improve reception due to the fact it does not even attach to the antenna!!! It is simply a clone of an inventory control sticker you see on stuff at the store that is supposed to be placed between the battery and the back of the phone. It looks all cute and intricate to make it appear to have been engineered to do something usefull. If you're trying to talk on a toliet in a bathroom on submarine 10000 leagues under the sea, FORGET IT, this PoS wont help!! Try quantum communication or ELF instead. =)
"Go forth and use marketing to confuse and mislead, be sure to get their money first!"
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
i'm standing 5 feet from my stereo but the speakers will hum loudly if i'm on my cell phone
;)
that can't be good
on the other hand it's cheaper than condoms
Until recently the tobacco companies have always denied that there was a link between smoking and cancer. In fact they even concealed that they commissioned research into smoking related diseases, in order to avoid litigation. The reasoning was that if there was no link then why was the research necessary?
.... "Yeah I know it's harmful but I just can't stop".
It seems incredible that the mobile phone manufacturers have tried to patent a radiation reduction technology. If the current radiation levels are safe then why waste money researching new lower radiation technology?
The contrast between the two industries cannot be greater. However the behaviour of the users seems identical
Yet people will complain bitterly about the perceived risk.
Every single study ever conducted (no exceptions) has found that using a cell phone while driving (without a hands-free kit) DRAMATICALLY increases you chance of having an accident.
Yet people the same people who complain about cell phones causing cancer using their phones while driving.
Go figure....
Of course Cell phone radiation is harmless!
What, that third eye? that's.. that's nothing, really, emm.. yeah.
Brain damage, you say? well.. we got SMS..!
I like work. I can sit and watch it for hours.
Bill Gates Has No Penis.
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.
I wish I had a sig, I wish I had a sig, I wish I had a sig, oh, wait...
I am as cynical as anyone when it comes to corporate greed. On the other hand, cell phone radiation is hardly a closed matter. It's all a matter of assessing the risk. If someone wants to include a 25 cent shield in my phone, why should I complain?
But then, I have trouble figuring stuff out lately.
Now I don't have to worry about memory loss from my phone anymore!
A guy I know used that used to work for erickson confirmed that radiation does affect peoples heads and this is why they develop these sheilds and the headset devices using bluetooth. I guess they do not want to lose sales while these things become standard and common.
-Ian
How was it flawed? The rats actually got cancer.
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.
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
What pisses me off is when women who are YOUNGER than me do that. I'm only 25 for pete's sake. When 18 year olds have a shit fit about not drinking caffeinated drinks really pisses me off. Don't ask me about the arguements I had with my Mormon friends while I was in high school.
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
This despite their consistent claims that cell phone radiation is harmless.
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.
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
Person buys some beer from 7-eleven (or something) and drinks it. then he goes to some some bars and drinks some more. In the end he gets drunk. Then he decides to climb over a fence that protects a hi-voltage powerline-tower and then he climbs the tower and gets hit by something like 100.000 volts. He survives. then he sues the shop for selling him the beer, the bars for selling him alcohol, and the electric company for "not protecting the tower well enough".
On halloween night a plane is landing to some airport. During the landing, it gets hit my some turbulence (perfectly normal). Well, 12 passengers decide to sue the airline for "causing extreme fear of dying" and they won!
Man buys a Big Mac. As he's eating it, a hot pickel falls on his chin. He gets awarded 40.000 dollars.
I got these from www.cala.org. I don't think they are there anymore though :(.
I mean.... Sheesh! I remember few years ago some americans sued a finnish company here in Finland, and they made similar demands (they demanded millions for something really stupid). I don't remember the details. I do remember that they were laughed out of the courtroom.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I am sick and tired of extremist people/groups. As said before, life is about taking certain risks. And i bet that if we went down to the nitty-gritty details and scientiffically researched everything, we'd find feces/pesticides(already found)/disgusting fillers/what-happens-to-that-extra-1-percent-that- the-fda-does-not-make-food-makers-disclose in most/a lot of our food.
And it'd be true with a lot of other things too.
I think we lose more life/health worrying than we would being exposed to these kind of things...
Hmmmm, am I am the only one happy with using a ear-supported headset? It actually makes sense driving, and heh heh, it gives you that "special ops" kinda look. Besides, then, you will get hip or gnad cancer from it being on your hip. Oh well...
How about a shield to protect the smarter percentage of the population from the damaging effects of stupidity? Stupid people's brains may give off stupid radiation, causing those around them to slowly become stupider. Do these shields work bi-directionally?
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Actually i read an article in the newspaper that talked about how if your on a cell phone, food isn't absorbed into your body. Good for weight loss.. :)
Hopefully it will encourage more activity like this.
Human logic: 1) I can't so you mustn't. 2) I can but you mustn't.
The real danger is second hand radiation. It's streamming through your body right now. Every cell phone, every tv channel, every pager signal travels outward from its source. Occacionally these signals cancel each other out, other times they amplify. Multiply by 10s of thousands of sources and viola, 2nd hand radiation experienced by you. I reserve the right to prevent your radiation from entering my body.