Slashdot Mirror
Can Cell Phones Damage Our Eyes?
Roland Piquepaille writes "I'm sure you've read dozens of stories about how our cell phones could be dangerous to our health, causing brain tumors for example. But so far, there is not a definitive answer. But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one. If the researchers are right, and even if you only occasionally use your cell phone, the lenses in your eyes can suffer from microscopic damages that won't heal themselves over time. As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans, I guess the controversy can begin and that another scientific team will soon tell us that this study is not correct. In the mean time, read more for other details and references. And whether you think that cell phones can damage our eyes or not, feel free to post your comments below."
There are so many researches and studies in the last 20 years, to the point that I'm starting to ignore all but a few obvious ones (like how you could get AIDS).
In my opinion, anything you do will cause damage to your body, even reading Slashdot everyday is enough to damage my eyes to a certain degree in the next 5-10 years, this is not including hitting F5 every 2 seconds, god knows how much damage that will do!
So this frying cell phone theory is rather pointless to me. If I have to make a phone call, I would use it, because I might just get run over by a car while trying to use that public phone booth across the street, or maybe cause a minor but irrepairable damage to my knees because of the extra travelling?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I can't see! Help!
They should add warning labels...those work great on smokers. ;)
Marky Mark Killed Jason Bourne!
Cell phones are not new technology. There have been enough people using them for long enough to qualify for a serious study of the adverse effects of cell phones on their users' health. We should be able to tell what cell phones do to us, without waiting another twenty years.
But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one.
Well, the solution is clear: ban microwaves. It's a matter of national security.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
I know how much Israelis love to talk on their pele-phones. If there was any damage they would all be blind by now :)
I'm exposed to an 802.11b network all day at work, and exposed to another 802.11b network all night at home.
Should I be worried? Does anyone know if being exposed to 2.4 GHz emissions might also be harmful?
This is silly... I use my cell phone all the time and my vision is fdlmw.
"As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans"
:|
what the hell is that supposed to me? it Has been done?
MABASPLOOM!
I have tin foil glasses.
When the phone rings I put them on before answering.
I also have the phone rigged up to be hands free
so it is safe for driving.
one more excuse not to pick up the phone when my mom calls me.
cha-ching. money baby... money
Well, yeah, I'm sure microwaves can cause some damage to the eyes. But honestly, what do you think is more important to the average person, the long term health of their eyes, or their next phone call?
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
I believe that the UW study was on the affects of cellular radiation on mice, and the results were equally disturbing. The exposed mice were invariably stricken with cancer while the unexposed mice remained at the norm.
But that study also showed that such effects were only engendered when the amount of radiation was both high and prolonged. The bovine lenses in this article were exposed to cellular radiation for 22 hours a day. If the exposure intensity is to be believed, then the transmitting antennas were placed right against the eyeball.
Neither of those situations is remotely near what normal cellular phone usage patterns resemble (unless you are a teenage girl, I suppose, but even then you aren't sticking the phone in your eye) (are you?).
So more study is necessary. The edge cases like the ones in the article and the UW study are very important to know, but the results of real-world testing ought to be examined as well. If we see a huge increase in the number of cancer and scratched lens cases in the coming years, there may be some validity to these studies.
I'll continue using my cellular phone, though. The convenience is just too great to pass up.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
"(like how you could get AIDS)."
I think the scientists got the "Unprotected Sex"
and "Cell Phone" folders mixed up on that one...
Can reading Roland Piquepaille's blog damage your eyes?
Can't I just keep using it until I need glasses?
" As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans ..."
So they had what, a bunch of monkeys in a room using cell phone all day?
And whether you think that cell phones can damage our eyes or not, feel free to post your comments below.
Whew, thanks. I don't think I can sit in silence any longer!
Personally the thought of holding a microwave transmitter next to my head freaks me out. My powerbook's wifi is as far as I'll go. At least that's only bathing my testicles in rich creamy radiofrequency energy, not my brain. Given a choice between lower earning potential at work, and my future kids being deformed and shriveled, I'll go with the special olympians.
This isn't Fark? My eyes must be failing me, oh look my cellphones ringing.
And if I do get a cellphone and it degrades my vision, at least I'll finally have an excuse to wear glasses (which I think are sexy) and try out coloured contact lenses. Hey, I just like looking on the bright side :)
feel free to post your comments below. Oh thank you, Roland. This is new. ; )
Ever since I was born, my elders have been telling me that I'll ruin my vision by staring at the computer monitor. It was common knowledge.
I'm 21 and my vision is still fine, despite the fact that I've stared at monitors at lot. Last time I had a doctor check my vision, it was 20/15.
Cell phones are probably not harmless, but it will probably be a while before we have a clear understanding of the consequences of using one.
weblogging spammer.
This sticker also blocks microwaves. Do it for the children.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
They say they exposed the eye tissue to 2.2 mW of radiation at 1.1 GHz. But 2.2 mW over what area? the room? One micron? The ~100cm^2 device in their setup? The important unit is *intensity*.
How much energy per area hits my eye from my cell phone in comparison? They don't say. That's a very important free parameter that they can vary to cause sensationalism where there may indeed be no danger.
It would be more useful if someone calculated this in burnt Libraries of Congress per century per square cubit.
Also, looking back at the article, they have the eye tissue sample in some sort of transmission line resonator. They don't go into specifics, but such a device could increase the power density of the microwaves by several orders of magnitude over that of a point emitter.
m
a week or so ago, basically saying 1/3 of all medical studies are pure bs? I know that's a horrendous paraphrase, but I still think it captures the gist of it.
In addition, they did this experiment on lenses taken from dead cows. Of course they're not going to heal, they're from dead animals! I'd be more impressed if the study was done on live animals (I can just imagine a chimp with a cell phone strapped to its head). I mean, last time I heard, dead people don't heal themselves, but live people do.
Great! Now we'll have blind and distracted drivers. How many times a day do you narrowly avoid an accident with a driver using a cellphone? Long overdue banning their use while driving, blindness or not.
Unless you enjoy what he has to say, stop feeding money to this guy.
Calling 900 numbers using a cell phone will make you go blind in a week.
My cell phone probably caused less damage than four pints of Guinness and six shots of Vodka I've downed last Saturday. And I'm not even beginning to mention the harm caused by the food I ate this week.
It's like saying "obese people run a higher risk of having high blood pressure and heart disease" and not mentioning their usually sedentary lifestyle, that, you know, may in itself cause higher blood pressure and heart disease.
Same here - OMG cell phone will fry your blinkers, while at the same time disregarding that these very blinkers are used to look at the computer screen for hours on end, and they weren't designed for that. How do you tell exactly what damages one's eyes when there are so many variables at play?
The study has lenses(without the protection normally offered from eyesockets and whatnot) exposed directly to the radiation for 50mins/hour.
Is this how one normally uses a cellular device? By holding it directly in front of the eye for 50 minutes at a time?
Those Israeli cell phones can damage more than your eyes!
Even if this is a real finding (the data given on the linked article were a little vague), it's very far from being meaningful in a medical sense.
The bovine lenses were taken out of the animals, then given almost constant radiation for 2 weeks. And they showed more damage than the control lenses that got no irradiation. So what? What are the odds that this compares in any way to a few minutes of cell phone use a day over many years, in a living animal? We don't know, and this study doesn't really help us in answering that.
The only people effected by this will be the owners of cellphones capable of displaying pornography. Fortunately, my phone has a text only display.
Not sure about eyes, but I've noticed the palm of the hand I usually hold my cell phone in is starting to grow hair. Very odd.
Although it does make it a little hard to see where I am going...
But it has the added benefit of keeping out the mind control rays...
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
I'm not saying cell phones are dangerous, or that they're safe. I don;t know. I have one so I hope they're safe.
But taking that attitude towards any potential bad news is just self reassuring stupidity.
Cell phones do vary widly in the amount of radiation they emit. They all emit quite a lot at the point of the antenna, and some emit far more than others.
The decay of the radiation is obviously cubic over distance, but where most are held, right next to the eyes and brain, the radiation is quite strong. At certain times such as call initialization it's very strong, strong enough to light batteryless LED accessories popular on some phones.
The notion that holding these close to our eyes and brains without worry of damage is pretty stupid, especially the sorts of damage which may take a decade or more to materialize in a serious manner, when cell phones have only been really popular for about a decade or less.
People should be concerned and not take for granted that new technologies are just automagically safe. Environmental effects of new technologies are increasing exponentially and we have absolutly no experience in human history to compare it with or assume it will be safe.
To do so is simply an unproven and rather stupid assumption.
yeah, technology probably hurts us, but evolution will sort it all out. Without adversity, there can be no change...granted the ability to reason must be considered as part of the evolutionary system. For example, as intelligent beings we could decide that it'd be in our best interest to give up cell phones. Or, alternatively, our genetic predecessors could decide to fly out of my butt.
I'd need to be convinced that this is relevant to lenses in an animal. It sounds a lot like thermal damage, so we need information about the temperature reached in the chamber and how the thermal conductivity of the chamber compares to the body. If you continually pump microwave energy, no matter how low in intensity, into a sufficiently well insulated chamber, you'll eventually manage to heat it up enough to cook a lens.
this post has a good overview of piquepaille's link farming activities.
I read/post on /. using my HP h6315 PDA phone using GPRS.
Between small fonts and this, I'm screwed!
Is it possible the study is right? Well, yes, we do know radiation causes biological changes, and depending on the frequency can do so at fairly low intensity levels, so it's at least certainly possible.
Is it a large risk? Very unlikely. If there wasa substantial risk of damage, we'd seen epidemological alarms spring up already. If there is a risk, it's small.
Do we need to actually care in practice? No.
Why? Because we always, at every turn, balance risks with benefits. Probably the single most dangerous activity we all do is move in automobile traffic. There are many, many well-known health risks - from accidents to the exposure of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to hearing loss - but we decide that the very substantial benefits outweigh the risks.
Arguably, mobile communications are not quite as beneficial as car transportation - though I could certainly see a case for disputing that - but then the risk downsides are also very very much smaller, this study or not.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
There are all these studies showing that using cellphones are bad for health, but very few illustrating how many lives were saved because people in danger had the ability to call for help. I'm not saying the study isn't valid, it may be. It's just that I think, in general, we're much safer with cellphones than without them.
Same thing applies to high voltage electical lines running near or through towns, white noise from wind generators, and countless other examples of people not effectively weighing up the benefits of technology with the drawbacks.
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
.... bananas
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
I've got this feeling so appealing
for us to get together and sing - SING!
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ding dong ding dong ding dong ding Donana phone
It grows in bunches I've got my hunches
Its the best beats the rest
cellular modular interactivodular
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ping pong ping pong ping pong ping Ponana phone
Its no baloney It aint a phony
My cellularBananular phone
Don't need quarters don't need dimes
to call a friend of mine
dont need computer or tv to have a real good time
I'll call for pizza I'll call my cat
I'll call the whitehouse, have a chat
I'll place a call around the world
Operator get me beijing jing jing jing
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ying yang ying yang ying yang ying Yanana phone
It's a real live mama and papa phone
a brother and sister and a dogaphone
a grandpa phone and a grandma phone too - oh yeah
my cellular bananular phone
Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
Its a phone with appeal (a peel)
Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
Now you can have your phone and eat it too
Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
This song drives me
Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
Bo ba do ba do do doob
Maybe you'd like to buy my plutonium table settings. I've been trying to get rid of them for years. The market really dried up. And the nice thing is they clean themselves!
"As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans"
Alright, that's the LAST time I flip a mouse's cell.
Psh, poor thing *kicks dust*.
Please move along. I mean it.
Same principle, been in use a long time, what's the verdict on those? Probably about the same as in home microwave usage.
Working for a cell phone outlet and activating phones, which can take place quitea few times every day and can last any where from 1-2 minutes, instead of hold the phone, I tend to place it on speaker mode if avaiable, and set the phone down during the programming process. I'm hoping that I'm decresing my bombardment a little bit.
Reading shitty media coverage of science like this is doing more to hurt my eyes than cell phones.
...cell phone users who txt msg a great deal become increasingly unable to recognize a grammatically correct sentence.
It's when I read research like this that I wonder about evolution. Apart from how right these researchers are (let's assume for this argument they are 100% right), then we should be able to "evolve" or adapt so that our body systems will become resistent to these kind of "attacks".
Maybe it's time to research a little more in the area of human adaption in cases like these. I suspect no surprises here really.
Back to the article - I wonder just how bombarded we really are? Radio, TV, Satelite, WiFi (essentially radio), Cell phones, Infra Red - the list just goes on. Surely this can not be good. Then again, do we live long enough to really care about these harmfull effects?
Just wondering.
Cheers
Nico
Need an ISP in South Africa?
So that's why drivers using cell phones can't see where the hell they are going!
-- Obligatory comment
sometimes, I get this point of "light" in the middle of my field of vision, which expands into a lightning shaped halo, for lack of a better description, until it goes in all directions beyond my field of vision completely... I'm pretty sure this "signal" is not coming from any of my eyes, because wherever I look, it's always in the same spot.
I can still see but the presence of this phenomenon is so distracting, I can't do anything until it's gone.
Thank goodness it doesn't happen very often... does anyone have a clue what it could be?
Considering how small cellphones are these days...
What would Brian Boitano do?
It's very nice of you to tell us to feel free to post our resposes below, given that it's not your site.
Ordinarily I wait for an engraved invitation before posting.
Mobile phones can do this???
Command attempted to use minibuffer while in minibuffer
Can you see me now?
Good.
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
Intense microwave energy can cause cataracts, yadda, yadda. Ergo, extremely small repeated exposures incrementally cause cataracts over time. And the band plays on. These "studies", particularly studies that haven't even been done yet, are complete rubbish. I wonder if these "Cargo Cult" studies are sort of like consolation prize projects for C grad students who have no hope in hell of getting funding for real research and instead dash off some headline grabbing paper or two in the "Journal of Wive's Tales and Popular Paranoia" to make their advisors happy and get out with something like a degree.
You forget that everybody has their bias. For all you know this study was influenced by the fact that these guys wanted to make headlines. After all, would a conclusion of "We discovered nothing happens" grab anybody's attention? Probably not, or at least, not as much. It seems in this day and age of instant information and 24/7 news, people have all but forgotten the oh so important skill of critical thinking.
Can Cell Phones Damage Our Eyes?
Given sufficient speed and/or thermal energy, most definitely yes.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
But now, Mossad, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that having racist apartheid state based on outdated claims could destroy your teeth.
Unless you enjoy what he has to say, stop feeding money to this guy.
But I do enjoy what he has to say. The subjects he brings up are usually relevant and interesting. His chosen links and commentary is, to me, accurate, evenhanded and to the point.
If he has found a way to make a bit of money doing this, more power to him.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Here's the hard part: proving that daily exposure to microwave radiation irrepairably damaged the microscopic structure of your eyes, or the result was due to aging. So your eyes don't see as far and as clearly as they used to; welcome to the human body.
As I remember it, 60 Minutes did a report a few years back regarding numerous claims that cellphone microwave radiation caused brain tumors. In the end, it took an independant lab (in Germany I think) conducting their own tests showing how a bisected prostrate dummy with a head full of acoustic gel could infact receive doses of microwave radiation in excess of what individual cellphone manufacturers advertised. The cellphone manufacturing community responded with "hands-free" and "ear buds".
On the other hand, we never heard how those individuals who claimed that cellphone emissions caused their brain tumors became part of a case study showing frequency of use, daily exposure to microwaves in general and their genetic propensity for brain tumors. Naturally something caused the brain tumors, but was it the specifically the daily use of a cellphone held at ear level that triggered it, or some other combination of factors in which the microwaves played a part. This is the angle that cellphone manufacturers will persue.
Studies have shown that people that live near power lines develop cancers, people that use cellphones develop brain tumors, and now a claim that people who use cellphones develop micro-fractures in the structure of their eyes. With cellphone sales becoming one of the leading catagories of consumer electronics, the odds that an unbiased study for a definititive answer seems unlikely in the near future.
On the other hand, the microwaves could trigger latent mutant genes in someone and usher in the next age in human development.
This is a little silly considering the lens is not in the animal's eye, but it does reflect my general awareness that anything about the size of the wavelength of powerful RF energy going through me is going to resonate and break more easily. So yeah, GHz = microwaves = bad mojo though maybe not quite as bad as those terahertz scanners and higher wavelengths than we use now will bring.
But consider realistically that not only do we not know the intensity used as someone mentioned, someone else said it was not in a living animal (though it was in something that allowed it to heal).
If it is caused by physical friction between intralens fibers, I wonder what would be the effects of:
- Closing your eyes while talking (I do this alot)
- Icing the eyes before/after/while talking
- Making the lens more or less rigid by focusing on far or near things while talking
- Increasing blood flow (to remove heat) or increase oxygen by jogging, breathing deeply or maybe just blinking, while talking.
- Imbibing alcohol (and bathing your eyes in the fumes) while talking
- Standing out in the cold wind in the winter time while talking
- Standing under a hot or cool shower while talking
And so on. Basically there is a lot of knowledge about radiation and how it affects the body so people ought to be able to imagine common behavior that could reduce the danger and then test against it.
At the very least, we're talking about microwaves that only penetrate a little bit of skin. So if I close my eyes while talking won't I get the double positive effects of shutting out some waves while acting as a heat sink (blood vessels in eyelids plus bathing cornea in fluid)?
I'm actually a bit more worried about always keeping a cellphone in my pocket, it's always on a little bit I think and maybe it's a little close to the family jewels.. on the other hand one friend with a family predisposed to cancer stays aways from digital gadgets as much as possible for that reason. Any real data there?
Is it only a problem if I have my cell phone against my head? How will I fair w/ my wireless hands-free?
The one where he posts a link to some article - any article, it doesn't really matter what - on his ad-laden page, then e-mails his Slashdot editor business partners, who then add a link to his page full'o'links in a bogus "story" on their page, and then they all sit back and count the cash rolling in...
Who can argue with magnanimity like that?
Anyway, I'm begging here: Can't we please have a Roland Piquepaille section so we can filter this stuff out? I'm not saying anything negative. I'm sure he's a wonderful guy and has a tremendous singing voice. I just don't want to read his blog.
Look, it's for your own good here guys. Do you honestly believe slashdot would still exist if we hadn't been able to un-check Jon Katz's section?
Do it for the team, guys!
-Peter
This sounds a lot like a phenomenon that can occur with migraines, called a scintillating scotoma (even in the absence of the classic headache). Ever been diagnosed with migraines or have a history of headaches?
Their findings are consistent with anecdotal evidence described in the IEEE Standard titled "Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." (IEEE C95.1). There they mention that heating can cause clouding (bubbles?) in lens material. See http://www.rfsafetysolutions.com/IEEE_standard.htm for an overview of the standard. The main concern at lower frequencies, 1 GHz included, is penetration of the RF into tissue and subsequent heating or other effects.
The standard was set to be an order of magnitude below perceptible heating (i.e., 10x below a level that could change the tissue temperature by say, 1 deg C). The standard was also for whole-body exposure, but was updated recently to include specific calculations for the Pinna (ear). No mention about eyeballs/lenses in that later doc.
So, if you look at the IEEE standard for "uncontrolled" environments (i.e., something similar to being in a room with WiFi constantly on), you'll see that the threshold for safe exposure is about 5x lower (at 1GHz) than the level the researchers used in the Israeli study.
I'd be surprised if there are any Wi-Fi hot spots that have a power level approaching the IEEE standard threshold limit.
It would be very interesting to compare their results to a lower dose that's below the standard safety levels.
Note that some PCMCIA format wireless RF cards have power levels of 2W, (at 2GHz), i.e., a thousandfold the power level of the Israeli study. Perhaps you should also be concerned about putting your eyeballs too close to your laptop when you're on the cell phone net!
She always said I'd fry my eyes if I stared at the microwave watching the burrito spin around.
For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who's genuinely gone blind after birth, and most people I know use cell phones. It seems, at least, that the damage, if real, does not happen very quickly. Regardless, I'm a skeptic.
...one more reason to wear a tinfoil hat
Now with my continual multi cell phone use and twice daily Viagra and grain alcohol habit, I should be able to go blind faster than ever!
Isn't technology Great!
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I will pay for see it... or ehm.. thatever... i will pay for touch it!
But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one.
Friggin Great.
Pre-adolescent boys risk going blind just playing with other boys ("You're going to put an eye out!").
Adolescent boys risk going blind just playing, err, with themself ("Stop that! You'll go blind!").
Now this ... when will the optometrical onslaught end ?!
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
Hmm is this "according to a new study" Or "research suggests" rofl
Vision-wise, I recommend against removing the lens from your eye.
I am no-longer able to see beneath clothes...*chucks the damn mobile". Is there a chance of regaining my x-ray vision back after having stopped using that evil device.
The best planning can be done after the project completes.
And whether you think that cell phones can damage our eyes or not, feel free to post your comments below.
Yes, please, weigh in with your opinions. I'm dying to get medical advice from high school WoW players and unemployed PHP programmers.
Instead of a low sperm count why don't I get a giant penis?
Instead of brain tumors, why can't I read people's minds?
Instead of loss of eye sight, why can't I shoot lasers through my eyes? or better yet, XRAY VISION!!
God damnit, why can't radiation work like in the comic books?
"Oh man I used my cell phone earlier....shit I am going blind.........
Wait a minute....what did I just read?"
So I read the story again....
"shit i cant see...wtf"
Just then i realize that smoking pot doesn't go too well with reading health stories.
WE didn't. This is earth.
But I can see how you would make that mistake, being a B-ark descendant.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
How about we collect a bounty to pay the execs of Nokia, Ericsson, etc., $100k/yr to be used as test subjects for these studies. For that $100k/yr they agree to have taped to their heads 50 phones continuously transmitting. Another 15 phones taped around the groin area would attract a further $20k/yr.
If the experiment proves successful, the next step is to force cigarette company execs to smoke 15 packets a day to provide the data necessary to prove that smoking cigarettes is actually beneficial to our health.
Some might call me extreme!!!
I personally don't think it is real smart to hold a microwave transmitter against your head. I am sure loads of pointy headed /. peeps will rabbit on about doses and distances but the bottom line is no one knows for sure and if they do they ain't saying (who is funding these studies?)
But I have a feeling that someone will finally conclusively prove that it is not a good idea to use your mobile phone too much.
It's just not plausible.
Sorry, my dog ate my sig...
The REAL reason behind all those cell-phone related driving deaths: Sudden blindness!
as usual some reasearch lab is in need of some funding so they make a release about finding links between something commonly used and the radiation boogy man. just talk about radioactivity and the avgerage idiot puts on his negativity goggles due to massive ignorance. the largest source of radiation you will come into contact with is the SUN. think about it, in 30 minutes it can cook your bloody skin. name me a stronger source your ever likely to run into?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
There is only one thing these studies show...
That pumping something full of anything, or exposing it to a ton of anything will produce damage.
and a well documented phenomenon. It will affect you later in life. Lose weight, read about diabetes and search for retinal flashing. It happened at 25-27 and then went away.
... through these tinfoil glasses anyway. But I am told they match my hat nicely.
Woot! I'm going to be the last person with eyesight in about 50 years! (I'm the only person I know without a cell phone.) That's if this computer monitor doesn't make me blind first...
Especially if the goatse guy gets it.
- Cell phones are for topical use only
- Not for Ophthalmic use
- Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling a cell phone may be harmful or fatal, but should otherwise be safe for your eyes.
- Avoid contact with eyes, scrotum, or mucus membranes
- Do not use cell phones as an ice cream topping
- Do not use cell phones if allergic to cell phones
- Caution: Contents under pressure
- Cell phones are for indoor or outdoor use only
- Cell phones are not dishwasher safe
- Do not eat cell phones
- Do not burn cell phones for light
- When not in use, store cell phone in a pocket, not in your eye
- Cell phone camera lens is not to be used as a substitute for a contact lens
- Cell phone use in movie theatres may result in black eyes
Use as directed. This is not a step
So let's see, Masturbation and Cellphones cause blindness. Now all you need to do is add Star Wars to the list, and I may as well start investing in Geordi LaForge's glasses right now!
My Favourite Meme
This is a stupid argument to begin with. Microwaves are literally too fat to cause any sort of molecular damage resulting in tumors or other defects. I drew up a crude image here
Wait .. does this mean the "harmless" active denial system that melts contacts and turns watches into flaming hot metal pain will alo cause permenent vision damage?
http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Micro waving_Iraq.htm
Wouldn't an ear piece prevent those radioactive death-rays from getting close to one's ears/eyes?
640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans...
Seeing as how the study has been conducted on humans and I haven't heard anything bad, I breath a sigh of relief. However if it said the study has not been done on humans, I might be slightly concerned.
What...? You don't say.
No sig for you!!
Eat oat bran, don't eat oat bran, drink red wine, don't drink red wine, use a cell phone, don't use a cell phone. No wonder people are confused...... I seriously doubt, unless you yack on the phone for 3-4 hours a wack you're going to get a lot of radiation from a digital phone, they only have .3watts of power. Even in the microwave region, that isn't enough.
If you are that worried, don't use a cell, or use a wireless headset.
With all this yacking about cell phones, what about wireless land line phones that work in the microwave band? Nobody is cryin' about them?
Personally, I use a BT headset...not from the "dangers of radiation" but because with my job, I have to keep both of my hands free....you ever try to hold a modern flip phone on your shoulder and do any serious work? Now THAT would be a good study item. "The serious injury possibilities of holding your mini phone up to your ear why twisting your neck". LOL
I am not sure however Articles from Roland results in third degree burns however.
Wait, and relax.
I don't know about you, but after trying this experiment a couple of times, I found that I could tell when my phone was about to ring, because I felt a very slight stinging sensation near the front of my eyes a few seconds beforehand.
That cannot be healthy.
Everything that Roland blogs about is just hyped psuedo-scientific BS. He only gets his articles published here by the hundreds becuase he has some special deal with the editors so that he gets alot of money from ad impressions from people cliking his links becuase his stories get posted here.
I checked out his blog (with advertising blocking enabled), and I noticed that someone seems to be running a denial of service attack on comments sections. This is one of the only times that I can think of such an attack being legitimate and warranted.
Bloody Jews... they can't spend a day without desecrating the Holy Communion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^^Hkilling a Palestinian.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Some one mod this off topic and offensive. ( and ignorant )
that was me, sorry, i was rubbing my dick in your eye.
no, but seriously... can you really feel it? i know sometimes my clock radio will make funny noises at night right before my phone rings, but that's scary if you can feel it in your eye.
With all of our breakthroughs in health science we need something to distroy our health.
I thought I remember something though about how microwaves are everywhere and are even being used to map the univers in it's infantsy
nope, they can damage my wallet !!!
I figure as we get higher up and into the terahertz lots of important things in cells are going to start vibrating, and deeper than just skin level too.
But what about if I close my eyes while talking on the phone, or focus near or far, or ice them maybe? I'd think the eyelids act as a radiation barrier, a heat sink, and also apply tears to the cornea. Wouldn't you think these could be more effective than something in a petri dish?
No reliable studies have shown anything, and generally you can set up a study to do so if there's a real problem. Also, though kids and adults are different due to development, in basically every case I'm aware of, things that have a negative impact on kids have SOME negative impact on adults. Like alcohol can have a much more serious on the development of a child, but it has pretty serious effects on adults that consume lots of it for prolonged periods too.
To me, this reeks of the powerline parinoia. There was parionia for a long time, and still is with some people, that growing up under powerlines would harm kids. My mom always fretted about that since I did for the first 6 years of my life. Well, there's been plenty of kids that have now, and turns out there is no difference than the rest of the population.
The problem with most of these studies is they take extreme amounts of the allegedly harmful thing, and expose animals to it continously, often under conditions that aren't normal (like in this case, it was eyes from dead cows, not something in living animals). Well sure that can have negative effects. I mean if I stuck a pipe to your stomach and gave you a gallon of water an hour, 24 hours a day, you'd die in rather short order from an electrolyte imbalance. That does not mean that drinking water is harmful though.
Just remember that usually when there's a "We exposed animals to this and they got cancer/died/listened to Bittany Spears records" study for something that seems harmless, they did it in such a way that you'd never encounter it. Same thing with Aspartame. The fed some lab rats thousands of times the dose a human would encounter (it's much sweeter than sugar so they use much less of it) and they got cancer. Ok, fine, what's that got to do with humans having a bit? Now, with it having been on the market for years, we know that it's not a danger to anyone except phenylketonurics (quite a rare disorder).
Cell phones should not be used by people with no blood pressure.
Do not boil when in use.
Cell phones should not be part of a calorie-controlled diet
Cell phone overuse in areas with poor reception may damage vocal chords
Do Not recharge cell phones with unleaded gasoline
Crazy Frog Ringtones may cause permanent brain damage within a 30 yard radius*
*Claim untested by the FDA
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
(inspired by "Yes Minister")
;-)
There are many more studies which do not establish a certain connection between cell phone usage and the damage to eyes, (mostly because the study has nothing to do with cell phones or eyes
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
It's not the porn after all
As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans
Fortunately a huge percentage of humans have already adopted this technology, so we now have results going back as far as ten years for you to work with.
Thank you.
{first pr0n surfing, now mobile phones! I am doomed!}
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: ascended
(why do I feel like more effort is spent on wrothless image word scripts than renaming 'old stories' to 'search'.)
www.useit.com
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
...welcome our new vision impaired overlords.
Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
Hello. You are representative of a subset of Slashdot users I would like to address this post to.
In addition, they did this experiment on lenses taken from dead cows. Of course they're not going to heal, they're from dead animals!
Let me start by saying that the article itself says the lenses were incubated in an organ culture. But that's somewhat beside the point. The point is this: You assumed that the study contained an incredibly obvious oversight. When you made that assumption, you clearly failed to ask yourself... "Are they really that stupid?"
Unfortunately, sometimes the answer to that question is "Yep". But in general, when some eager beaver such as yourself gets carried away with how supremely stupid someone (presumably) much more qualified than their humble self did, they can overlook simple things (such as the actual article).
At any rate, your offhand invocation of the "1/3 of all studies" line is complete fluff, and makes your relevant biases crystal clear. May your positive moderators burn in metamod hell.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
damn people with their annoying ringtones especially that crazy frog, he ruined the axel f song aka the beverly hills cop theme, the b'stad!
Accept any challenge, No matter the odds.
Anyone get a headache from using a cellphone? Seriously it's not psychological. Everytime I use a cellphone without the hands-free, I feel a pain on the side of the head facing it. If I switch hands, the other side starts to hurt.
I've always thought it's psychological, but it's just too unlikely. Anyone else has this?
You are speculating, and speculating intelligently, but there is no need for speculation. It is possible to calculate the expected effect of microwave radiation on surrounding material.
Suppose you wanted to fry something on purpose. How much microwave energy would you need? The amount of energy in each photon is related to Planck's constant, which is a very small number: 6.62606891 x 10**-34 joule-seconds, with an uncertainty of 89 parts per billion.
The energy of each photon is equal to Planck's constant times the frequency of the radiation. The frequency of cell phone communications is centered around 850, 900, 1800, or 1900 MHz, or millions of cycles per second, in the case of GSM phones, which are the most common. 1,000 MegaHertz is 10**9 cycles per second, or Hertz.
The frequency of red laser light, or red LED lights, is about 4 x 10**14 Hertz. So, each unit of electromagnetic cellular phone radio energy is somewhere near 1/400,000th of the energy of one photon of red laser light.
Heat is electromagnetic energy, too. The numbers are such that the energy of cell phone radiation after it spreads as it travels toward your head is small compared to the energy of the heat in the room and your body.
The result is that there is no manner presently known to physics in which the energy of the phone radiation could interact sufficiently to make a difference in the chemistry of your body. Cell phone radiation cannot affect the chemistry of your body by heating the tissue, for example. Microwave ovens achieve heating using at least 600 watts focused in one direction.
There are many, many very well-educated people in the world who would love to discover a new way that electromagnetic energy interacts with matter. Such a discovery would make any physicist or chemist instantly famous, and almost certainly earn him or her a Nobel Prize. The motivation to make such a discovery is enormous for people working in those fields. The fact that no such discovery of a new kind of interaction has been made is indicative that at least it is not easy.
Over the years I've read several articles by people who claim to have discovered biological damage by cellular phone radiation. For example, there was a previous Slashdot story in which such damage was claimed. All the articles I've seen are examples of fraud, not physics or chemistry. Generally what the "researchers" are doing is applying enough concentrated energy that they get local heating.
Generally the fraud in these reports is not in the reports themselves, which just detail the laboratory measurements. The fraud is in knowing that people will generalize information in the report to cell phone use, and not warning them of the incorrectness of such an conclusion. It's fraud, done for the temporary fame.
There are many people who know more about this than I. Someone else may want give a more complete or better explanation. For example, someone may want to show how to calculate the amount of local heating caused by cell phone radiation. I did that once with a physicist friend, and the amount of heating was insignificant. Walking from the shade into the sun will heat your body much more. Standing in the sun absorbing the high-energy ultraviolet radiation is truly damaging; severe exposure can cause sores and even eventually skin cancer. The photons of ultraviolet light are more than a million times more energetic than cell phone radiation, and the sun emits far, far more energy than a cell phone.
This research is funded by the Transportation Authorities to scare you into you purchasing hands-free kits.
you're eyes are good enough for a nerd ;)
Actually, I think you're wrong. I've been taught that the way microwave oven operates is that the energy of the photon is equal to the water molecules lowest vibration energy level. I did my quantum physics courses in the university some time ago, but this I remember clearly: Professor said that absorption is heavily frequency dependent thing and therefore cellular phones shouldn't be a problem.
I don't have my physics book by me right now and the links I find on the web can't really confirm this as one forum says one thing and the other says another. Even wikipedia does this.
So I propose someone built a 2GHz or 3GHz microwave oven, if it works then I'll have to accept that it's not frequency dependent. Otherwise I'll hold my Physics professor as an authority in this case.
?SYNTAX ERROR
If holding your cell phone near your head can be dangerous, use the hands-free set, that way the phone is not near your head - could this be the solution ?
There are wired and wireless sets, like bluetooh today.
My current phone is about 3 years old, its been through allot and is falling apart from cracks. When I use it I can feel 'something' but I keep telling myself that something is psychological and im just imagining that the cracks are increasing the risk. I think either way we are probably doomed - if the radiation isn't a problem then the psychological effects of being constantly told phones might be bad will mess with our minds. I really wish someone would find something conclusive either way.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Nothing new. Same with glasblowers, who get an eye cataract from their job.
As tgibbs said: Take any confined and insulated tissue, pump energy in it, eventually the cells will be damaged. Sooner or later.
You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled.
Cellphone radiation made me blind
...you insensitive clod
This is outrageous! Antisemitism!
What happens when you look at a laser or the sun??? Light is radiation. Radiation is energy. Hmm maybe light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum? oh yea, duh!
Common frequencies:
Visible Light: 600~ THz
802.11a: 5 GHz
802.11b: 2.4 GHz
Cell Phone: 900~ Mhz
Sound (we hear): 10~ KHz
OK! We have a 90 Hz signal with an EIRP of 200dBm. put this up to your eyeball, can you still see with that eye? Now we can take out the other eye with a 2.4 Ghz signal at 55dBm.
The point is, is that light (and color) are just one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and that it would be logical to conclude that any part of the EM spectrum 'could' damage your eye's given the right circumstances.
Your Monitor = 430 to 750 THz Light Transmitter.
Your Eyes = 430 to 750 THz Deluxe Stereo Light Receiver with built-in Multiband Scanner.
It's a miracle we can even see, in color!
It's actually a good example of how bad service is in Japan once you get above the lowest levels of service. Sure, the service in most restaurants is pretty good, but it won't make you blind.
I've been trying to figure out why they even built several high speed wireless digital networks if they don't plan to use them for useful Internet services. For example, as far as I know, there are no streaming audio services that use those unlimited "Internet" connections. However, at least that wouldn't be blinding.
Oh, well. I suppose it's a transient problem. Once they have a few thousand documented cases of blindness caused by excessive portable phone use for the Internet, they'll pass some laws to limit it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Roland, I'm not a native speaker but reading your articles hurts my eyes and brain. Please, read some non-technical books to learn how to speak/write. Thanks.
25 year old wo/man aggresivley driving SUV while bitching on cell phone causes 25 car pile up and cites sudden loss of sight in one eye due to cell phone microwaves as the cause. Lawsuit ensues, Lawyers win.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
RF signals at high enough power or close enough proximity have a heating effect on human tissue, particularly aqeuous tissue.
So this isn't surprising.
That's why the only solution is to heat your kidneys instead. Use a wired headset, not those bluetooth jobs. Stop cooking your eyes and brain - particulary in the case of the brain. Can't transplant that as yet. But a kidney can be transplanted so hook that baby to your belt and use the wired headset.
I suppose it would be silly to mention say... headsets at this point. That way the actual phone is not next to our heads.
BTW - I think those wireless sets defeat the purpose, at least as far as this topic goes.
From the intro:
As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans
HUH???
I've decided to start using my bluetooth earpiece more often. That'll keep the phone away from the side of my head right?
Uh oh... what do we do when they discover that bluetooth rots brains?
Ugh
MFG: "The system supports both the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and WIMP (Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP) platforms."
People will probably invent a variation of the umbrella hat made of tin foil. The cell phone antenna will be on the top and rest of the phone on your belt. You'd talk through a micro/earphone headset. But then the huge increase in lightning strike deaths and the anti-chick magnet affect of walking around with a aerial topped umbrella hat will cause a near extinction of the human race.
I'd really like to reply in this thread. But I just got off my cell phone and, honestly, I can't see a freakin' thing right now.
Minor nitpick: the decay is *square* over distance, i.e. energyAbsorbed=k/(Distance*Distance).
Just so people using a headset with a 3-(unit length) cord realize they're absorbing 1/9th the energy they would without, rather than 1/27th.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
if mobile radiations are so inoffensive, can someone tell us how the hell your mobile phone affects televisions, normal phones, petrol stations and airplanes machinery and so on? and not our eyes or brains?
I had better than perfect vision up until the time I was 19, 2 years into my free income calls plan. By 22, It's gotten worse, but not quite as quickly as my boyfriend doesn't like to talk on the phone more than 10 min a day. If it keeps up at this rate, my eyes will be gone by 30, all b/c of my addiction to the cell phone :-(
My name is a variety of floral rose, and no, it's not blue
I use it to dry my hair.
WTF is it with this cell phone use. Of course its 'dangerous' and can cause disease. So can sunlight. Just try to limit your exposure. For instance, I try not to carry my cell phone in my front pants pocket (just in case of testicular cancer spontaneously generating.)
But that's not a sixteen year old girls' worry is it? If you want a sixteen year old girl to lay off the cellular, tell her it causes acne.
You can make a case for the radiation stimulating the oil glands and the body being unable to repair the constant damage after a certain amount of exposure.
Point to their fellow creatures and ask them to pick out all the ones with a cell phone plastered to their hair. Notice all the number of 'pizza faces'?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'll add to my parent comment. I was hoping someone else would help, but instead there are three comments seeming to disagree, but not really disagreeing.
Everyone agrees that heating alone is not enough to cause problems; cell phones just don't emit enough energy. As I said above, walking into the sunlight is likely to heat you much more than cell phone radiation.
Atoms do interact with microwaves of cell phone frequencies. However, no one has ever shown any chemical or biological effect of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). No one has ever shown any chemical or biological effect of Electron Spin Resonance (ESR). Those are qualities of the nucleus and of electrons, but apparently have no effect on the interaction of electrons in chemical bonding. The bonding is what makes the nature of chemistry, and therefore biology.
As I mentioned above, anyone discovering a new kind of interaction between electromagnetic waves and chemical bonds would immediately be very famous. It's not as though it hasn't occurred to anyone to do research.
People say that there may be some subtle effect that we have not yet discovered. And there may be. However, those comments often give the impression that they think that the discovery of a new subtle interaction would have a subtle effect on our understanding of the world. That isn't true. In fact, the discovery of a new interaction would create a revolution in Physics, in areas we think we know well. That makes it seem less likely. Our understanding of the Physics has been stable for many years. For example, Planck's constant is known with an uncertainty of only 89 parts per billion.
Einstein's discovery of relativity revolutionized our understanding of physics at extremely high relative speeds. Relativity has no detectable effect at low speeds. Discovery of a new interaction between electromagnetic energy and chemical bonds would revolutionize our understanding of normal life.
The sun emits energy in the same wavelengths as cell phones. The only difference between the sun's energy and cell phone emissions is that the cell phone energy is at one specific frequency, and the sun emits energy at all frequencies. But no one has shown any frequency-specific interaction, and the physics is quite clear that there cannot be any. High energy electromagnetic waves definitely can have a strong effect on chemical bonds, but not low energy waves. The energy emitted by cell phones is perhaps 1/10,000 or 1/100,000 of the energy needed.
For there to be interaction, there would have to be both coupling and resonance. The comparatively long wavelengths of cell phone emissions couple very weakly to the tiny electrons that affect chemistry.
A stronger response to some frequencies would indicate resonance of some kind, a frequency-dependent absorption. Because there is broad absorption at cell phone frequencies, there appears to be no chance for resonance. The problem with theorizing resonance is that the mild absorption of each molecule at those frequencies blocks the propagation of energy, and tends to spread the single frequencies by absorbing at one wavelenth and emitting at another, in a well-known random way.
I am a visual researcher working on visual prosthetics (aka artificial eyes), so you get to choose if my opinions are those of an expert or a fanatic.
I don't care if I get cataracts, really. Certainly life would be better if they never happen, but current medical techniques to treat cateracts by replacing the lens with a plastic equivalent are very well developed and have such low physiological impact that they can be done on an out-patient basis in about 10 minutes. It's really not a big deal. Replacing a lens is less invasive than doing LASIK or any of the other similar lens modifying procedures that require partial dissection of the cornea. To replace the lens, a small incision is cut near the limbus (the edge of the cornea), an ultrasonic wand inserted through the incision to break up the lens, then a suction tube used to clean up the debris, and a new lens (folded up with a spring around the edge like those windshield shades for your car) inserted and deployed. Local anesthesia only, and post-op care is dark glasses for a day or two because of the drugs used to dialate the pupil. Typically, if both eyes are done, one is set to be near-sighted, the other far-sighted, and the brain learns very quickly to automatically switch between the two.
So, while cateracts (and yellowing of the lens, a nearly ubiquitous condition in the aged) used to be debilitating, they are nearly a non-problem now.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Especially given that "When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it's ... three out of every four papers shows [a biological] effect" from Cell Phone radiation.". The article is here:
w akeupcall01.html
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/
I suppose that the peer review which goes on in science means nothing. I also suppose that publishing so that people can reproduce your results also means nothing. Most scientists believe that is what makes the scientific process so valuable. But according to your arguments, it's irrelevant, and just results in fraud.
Either the scientific process and community are in gross error with how they do things, or there's something wrong with your hand waving calculations and arguments.
Personally, I'll place my bets on the scientific community. And it's clear that you're just trolling.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I just jammed my cell phone in my eye - it hurts! IT HURTS!!
What this discussion here brings to my mind is the whole notion of "safe". Putting formaldehyde in canned to food to preserve food, USED TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE - NOT ANY MORE! Forcing everyone to have a chest x-ray every year to detect tuberculosis, USED TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE - NOT ANY MORE! Lead used in food tins and in plumbing components was used because "lead was insoluble in water" - USED TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE - NOT ANY MORE! Shoes used to be fit with floroscopes in shoe stores, USED TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE - NOT ANY MORE! Even today, when one sees "safe" applied to many situations (Radon, VOC's gasing off computer components, fire retardents off gasing from your computer monitors and on and on) - if there has been any epidemiological studies done (rarely) - the study is based on the impact of a particular compound/effect on a 150 pound male. Naturally an infant wieghting 1/10 the weight would be exposed - to 1000 percent higher exposure?! Safe?! The Precautionary Principle - "better be safe than sorry" - seems to be applied less and less everyday in our culture - as the astronauts who got shredded into nothing - learned.
One point that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet is that RF frequency radiation (low GHz range) is already known to interact with "matter", at least on some level. Low GHz RF waves are roughly the right frequency for spin-spin transitions of hydrogen (and other element) nuclei, and are the basis for the "MRI" imagers used in hospitals and NMR spectrometers used by chemists. These machines commonly have a number of safety provisions regarding exposure to their RF fields; granted, this is probably due to the previously noted "heating" effects produced by the powerful instruments.
The only thing that has yet to be established is how nuclear spin transitions could possibly cause cellular damage....
...because there is zero chance of humanity giving up mobile phones (or bluetooth stuff, or wireless laptops, or any similar close-to-the-body radio emitter). Their utility is high enough that most people will see the risk of being maimed as the lesser evil.
We all knew this day would come... pretty soon the FDA will branch out, assuming some FCC territory claiming that only they have the resources to perform the sort of testing on a new product that is necessary to diagnose all potential problems. I knew getting a CrackBerry was a bad idea.
Ibe veem isong cekk pgomes fir s coypke of years ans i csn srr pergectlu finr!
feel free to post your comments below.
Is that how slashdot works, Roland? Thanks for clarifying that bit for me. Otherwise, I might've just grunted bestially at the screen for a couple of hours.
We aren't monkey's at the obilisk, dude. We now how the reply button works.
-Tom
If you just want protection for your eyes, try tinfoil contacts!
I was the one who spammed your comments section until you removed the commenting ability from your blog.
Now I am flooding your trackbacks.
This will continue until you stop posting your garbage to Slashdot.
If these measures do not succeed in convincing you that the community here does not appreciate your scams, your stupid articles, and your little business operation, then I do have other measures I am willing to take.
I can render your email addresses useless at my command. I can literally have millions of messages suddenly appear in your inbox.
I also posses significant amounts of bandwidth. As a last measure, I am also willing to start a denial of service attack against your website(s) with notes to your service provider stating why it is happening and what it will take to stop it.
Roland, your only option is to stop submitting articles to Slashdot. If you only submitted articles very occasionaly, no one would have given enough a damn about your little money making operation. However, you have literally spammed Slashdot with junk articles and junk science with your junk commentary. We are sick of it. We are fed up.
-Blog Terrorist
Does it also give you hairy palms?
Finally, a slashdot reader with balls.
You said above, "I think the greatest fraud here are your own statements."
You said this in response to my saying, "All the articles I've seen are examples of fraud,
One of the worst characteristics of Slashdot discussions are people who make strong, certain-sounding statements pretending to be responses to something they've seen, when they didn't read what was written carefully. I haven't read all of the responses to this thread yet, but 3 of them are like that, at least.
You cited an article about Henry Lai's research. In my opinion, Henry Lai is an embarassment to the University of Washington. I have no connection to anyone or any company in the cell phone industry. Here is my Slashdot comment about him:
Distinguish between real science and junk science.
My guess is that you didn't read my comment carefully, and have no idea whatsoever about the science I explained.
Jesus, I have to laugh when I read something like this. Cell phones do NOT use microwaves. They transmit at 1800-1900mhz, less than the portable headsets, and wireless game controllers people use everyday that are 2.4ghz. The only mobile phones that use microwaves are Iridum sattelite phones. Check your facts..
When I was young I had a friend that had a pet bird. The birds cage was in the sunlight for a couple hours one morning while we were playing together. His mother was cleaning behind the cage and happened to slide it into a bright part of the room. As we were leaving the house to go ride our bikes or something (I don't remember exactly what we were doing) my friend somehow had decided that the bird was hot and needed a chill down and went back inside as I stepped outside getting ready to go.
We went out and were gone for maybe 30 minutes. When we got back to his house his mother had a very somber look on her face and sat us down and began to tell us that the bird must have escaped while she was cleaning and we were out playing, and that she was really sorry and on and on. My friend jumped up and said "He's not gone! He's in the freezer!..."
His mother jumped up almost coming out of her skin and ran for the kitchen before he could finish his thought. She flung the freezer door open and there was the little bird. Still alive, but freezing cold and moving very slowly. She put the bird back in the cage and we watched it for a few minutes and it seemed ok.
Well, we started to play again and he went to the kitchen to get a drink or something... Or so I thought. Feeling bad for what he had done, he had left the room to take the bird and put it in the microwave to warm up! I came out of the room shortly after he had been gone a minute or two. There was the birdie spinning round and round inside of the microwave doing about 20 minutes. His mother walked by just at the moment I got there and again jumped and shreeked in surprise. She Flung Microwave door open and reached in to get the bird. He was very warm now and a little dizzy it seemed. She put the bird in the cage and within a few short hours tweety was dead.
I'm not exactly sure what the temperature of the bird was, or how it's eyes were functioning at the time, but it most certainly was not a happy bird in the last few hours. It staggered around it's cage and tried to chirp, but it sounded more like a buzz than a chirp. Oh yeah, and the bird smelled slightly like cooked chicken as it came out of the microwave.
The Moral of this story is... Don't put cold house pets in the microwave.
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
Ham radio operators have been very carefull with RF around the eyes for years. When I was a kid and was working to get my license It was drilled into me that RF energy around the eyes could damage.
mycal
Interesting point. But there would still be the problem of coupling. How could you get energy to one particular molecule, when all of them are vibrating rapidly due to heat?
*Duh*!
Did anyone read the temperature they exposed the damaged eyes to?
39.58C or 103.244F for 30 minutes x 6 sessions.
There are MANY more incidents of high heat exposure that people should be worried about. If my eye temperature (~94-95F at surface) was "suddenly" nearly 10F warmer, I think I might notice it as *pain*...ow!
Think about the desert heat that many people live (and fight wars) in. Temperatures there are easily over 110F -- have heard of temperatures around 120 not being uncommon.
What about people working near blast furnaces, metal or glass making, etc? How about sitting in front of a fireplace or camp fire and staring into the fire? It gets uncomfortable if the heat is hot enough -- you _notice_ it. That type of heat isn't going to happen in your eye without you being aware of it.
It's been a known fact of science that heat "cooks" protein and that the
human body doesn't function well with sustained internal temperatures
at 103 and higher. Raise it by 1.67C above that and you risk permanent brain damage as well, or raise a body "fever to 2C above their test temperature --
it's frequently fatal.
This isn't rocket science or news.
-l
Of course I understand that the normal high pitched noise you can hear near a TV is just the coil being loose or other stuff moving air, ie. generating ordinary sound. That's a purely auditory phenomenon. I was merely describing the sound/sensation I have had after exposure to some Wi-Fi APs.
I agree that the photo flash triggers lots of nerve cells and that it's much easier to cause disruption this way. Nerve cells may not ordinarily be very sensitive to RF, but the signal recovery that can be done by massive paralellism (think lofar) is enormous. Also, half a lambda of 2.4GHz fits nicely in your skull -- maximum efficiency wrt. potential and field strength differences.
I really have the experience of 'raising the noise floor' in the head, if I can use that analogy. Near APs or some operating cellular phones I can't think of as many things at once as I'm used to, and as a programmer, it's essential to cover lots of possibilities and decision trees quickly.
I'm playing with the possibility of cognitive problems, because around here, there's still in most cases no AP operating near you. If this feeling of only being able to hold one strong thought at a time occurs, and I ask eg. my customer whether there's wireless, most often there is. I also often measure if there's any Wi-Fi around, and a good day is often confirmed by no Wi-Fi around.
By the way, I didn't mean to paint USians ignorant! I just think they're generally going a bit overboard these days with installing Wi-Fi in every coffee shop, around every park, and those municipal Wi-Fi projects. It has a cool factor to surf the web in impossible places, but generally you prefer a bit of comfort for serious computing.
Cheers,
Emile.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)