Could an EMR absorbing chip reduce the health risk of cellphones?
April 5, 2011 10:07 PM Subscribe
Assuming that the radiation from cellphones is somewhat dangerous, will a product like a chip that absorbs EMR like this one (http://www.radiguard.com.au/the-solution.html) be useful?
I understand there's a lot of debate around whether the radiation emitted by cellphones is even harmful, but I'm not particularly interested in having that debate. I'm working under the precautionary principle here. It's more that I don't understand the physics of the potential danger enough to judge whether a product like the one advertised here http://www.radiguard.com.au/the-solution.html would be of any use.
Thanks for your help!
I understand there's a lot of debate around whether the radiation emitted by cellphones is even harmful, but I'm not particularly interested in having that debate. I'm working under the precautionary principle here. It's more that I don't understand the physics of the potential danger enough to judge whether a product like the one advertised here http://www.radiguard.com.au/the-solution.html would be of any use.
Thanks for your help!
Best answer: No, for two reasons. Number 1, the only radiation emitted by a cellphone is the radio signal it uses to communicate with the base station. If you block it, there's not much point in having a phone.
Number 2, that little sticker (or whatever it is) does not do anything to block a cellphone signal. Even if you accept their flimsy "evidence" at face value, the only documentation they have is that it lowers your phone's temperature by 4 degrees Celsius (how's that supposed to work?) and blocks radio waves in the 9 GHz band, which cellphones don't transmit on. It's a blatant scam whose only function is to separate you from your 40 bucks.
If you're really worried about microwave emissions from your phone regardless of the mountains of evidence that they're safe, get a hands-free set and keep the phone a few inches away from you while you're making calls. Problem solved.
posted by teraflop at 10:19 PM on April 5, 2011 [10 favorites]
Number 2, that little sticker (or whatever it is) does not do anything to block a cellphone signal. Even if you accept their flimsy "evidence" at face value, the only documentation they have is that it lowers your phone's temperature by 4 degrees Celsius (how's that supposed to work?) and blocks radio waves in the 9 GHz band, which cellphones don't transmit on. It's a blatant scam whose only function is to separate you from your 40 bucks.
If you're really worried about microwave emissions from your phone regardless of the mountains of evidence that they're safe, get a hands-free set and keep the phone a few inches away from you while you're making calls. Problem solved.
posted by teraflop at 10:19 PM on April 5, 2011 [10 favorites]
From their FAQ:
How do you prove the effectiveness of RADIGUARD PLATINUM?
It is very simple. Stick RADIGUARD PLATINUM to your mobile phone and from the next minute you will feel the difference. Your mobile will stop emitting the heat that you were experiencing earlier from your phone.
This is where they should link to a peer reviewed article, or at least a well-bullshitted explanation of what is supposed to happen. They're not even trying. Which probably means it's a load of crap.
posted by phunniemee at 10:22 PM on April 5, 2011 [4 favorites]
How do you prove the effectiveness of RADIGUARD PLATINUM?
It is very simple. Stick RADIGUARD PLATINUM to your mobile phone and from the next minute you will feel the difference. Your mobile will stop emitting the heat that you were experiencing earlier from your phone.
This is where they should link to a peer reviewed article, or at least a well-bullshitted explanation of what is supposed to happen. They're not even trying. Which probably means it's a load of crap.
posted by phunniemee at 10:22 PM on April 5, 2011 [4 favorites]
The platinum has apparently been SCIENTIFICALLY tested by the CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE, which is these guys, for whom the 70s never ended.
Add my vote to the "this is horseshit" bloc.
posted by fatbird at 10:36 PM on April 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
Add my vote to the "this is horseshit" bloc.
posted by fatbird at 10:36 PM on April 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
The heat your cell phone is emitting can't be "trapped" by a sticker. As to the electromagenetic waves it's emitting (which are far below the ionizing radiation threshold), you certainly can't block them by something on the other side of the phone from your head, even if a thin sheet of plastic could stop something that the walls of buildings can't (if you were going for a Faraday-cage effect, you'd need to fully shield yourself).
FWIW, here's info on cell phone radiation and health.
posted by you're a kitty! at 10:43 PM on April 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
FWIW, here's info on cell phone radiation and health.
posted by you're a kitty! at 10:43 PM on April 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
The platinum has apparently been SCIENTIFICALLY tested by the CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE, which is these guys, for whom the 70s never ended.
ha! Dr. Berger's "recently published" book came out in 1997! This is awesome. It's like if you opened up an old shoebox in your grandma's basement and found a website inside.
posted by phunniemee at 10:47 PM on April 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
ha! Dr. Berger's "recently published" book came out in 1997! This is awesome. It's like if you opened up an old shoebox in your grandma's basement and found a website inside.
posted by phunniemee at 10:47 PM on April 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
Snake oil would work better.
Seriously, assuming snake oil conducts electricity, a thin film of snake oil would block more of the cellphone's radiation than this sticker.
This is my-horse-can-predict-elections level of sham.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:48 PM on April 5, 2011 [5 favorites]
Seriously, assuming snake oil conducts electricity, a thin film of snake oil would block more of the cellphone's radiation than this sticker.
This is my-horse-can-predict-elections level of sham.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:48 PM on April 5, 2011 [5 favorites]
It appears that this device primarily reduces the amount of heat (thermal radiation) emitted by the phone. Leaving aside the debate about EMR, I think we can safely say that low amounts of thermal radiation aren't harmful.
posted by zombiedance at 10:54 PM on April 5, 2011
posted by zombiedance at 10:54 PM on April 5, 2011
If you are genuinely concerned about EM radiation from your phone (You shouldn't be, but that's not the question you asked), you should do the following:
Keep a handsfree mic/earphone permanently in the phone, only use that for calling.
Keep the phone in a purse or other bag rather than in your pocket.
The thing you linked to is just an expensive sticker, if it was actually blocking radio signal then the phone would boost the signal to compensate which is not what you want.
posted by atrazine at 11:24 PM on April 5, 2011
Keep a handsfree mic/earphone permanently in the phone, only use that for calling.
Keep the phone in a purse or other bag rather than in your pocket.
The thing you linked to is just an expensive sticker, if it was actually blocking radio signal then the phone would boost the signal to compensate which is not what you want.
posted by atrazine at 11:24 PM on April 5, 2011
This chip looks similar to the E-waves Phone Chip. The Radiguard Platinum is black though, the E-waves was green. So at least in the visual spectrum this one works better in absorbing radiation.
posted by Akeem at 1:21 AM on April 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Akeem at 1:21 AM on April 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Actually, radiation from cell phones may very well pose a danger. Said radiation does appear to alter our brain's metabolism. We don't know.
(Answers like, "There is no debate over whether cellphone radiation is harmful. It isn't", are extraordinarily pedantic, by the way. However, maybe that was the point.)
The linked NYT's article suggests using bluetooth headsets, which emit far less radiation, and keeping the phone out of your breast pocket or hip pocket. Also, the fewer bars you have on your phone, the article continues, the more radiation it puts out.
However, it is actually cautionary about the device you are asking after. The article explains that such devices may in fact increase exposure to radiation.
It is highly worth reading over.
posted by Mike Mongo at 1:23 AM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
(Answers like, "There is no debate over whether cellphone radiation is harmful. It isn't", are extraordinarily pedantic, by the way. However, maybe that was the point.)
The linked NYT's article suggests using bluetooth headsets, which emit far less radiation, and keeping the phone out of your breast pocket or hip pocket. Also, the fewer bars you have on your phone, the article continues, the more radiation it puts out.
However, it is actually cautionary about the device you are asking after. The article explains that such devices may in fact increase exposure to radiation.
It is highly worth reading over.
posted by Mike Mongo at 1:23 AM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
> There is no debate over whether cellphone radiation is harmful. It isn't.
It may be more complicated than that. According to research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology:
"the 10% of people who used their phones most often and for the longest period of time — 30 minutes a day or more on average for at least 10 years— had a substantially higher risk of developing some form of brain cancer than those who didn't use a mobile phone at all".
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989740,00.html
The study is here:
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ije/press_releases/freepdf/dyq079.pdf
posted by surenoproblem at 1:28 AM on April 6, 2011
It may be more complicated than that. According to research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology:
"the 10% of people who used their phones most often and for the longest period of time — 30 minutes a day or more on average for at least 10 years— had a substantially higher risk of developing some form of brain cancer than those who didn't use a mobile phone at all".
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989740,00.html
The study is here:
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ije/press_releases/freepdf/dyq079.pdf
posted by surenoproblem at 1:28 AM on April 6, 2011
>>>"the 10% of people who used their phones most often and for the longest period of time — 30 minutes a day or more on average for at least 10 years— had a substantially higher risk of developing some form of brain cancer than those who didn't use a mobile phone at all".
Maybe it is the talking that causes cancer. If you used a phone but didn't talk then you wouldn't develop cancer.
posted by koolkat at 1:59 AM on April 6, 2011
Maybe it is the talking that causes cancer. If you used a phone but didn't talk then you wouldn't develop cancer.
posted by koolkat at 1:59 AM on April 6, 2011
From the linked study, right up near the top:
Conclusions: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.posted by jon1270 at 2:26 AM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
1- If that sticker absorbed the radiation the phone puts out, the phone would cease working.
2- It is true that the "bars" on your phone (for GSM phones anyway) actually indicate the transmit power of the phone. Every 1.something seconds, the phone pings out to see if it has any calls or messages. If it receives no response, it ups the power and drops a bar. Zero bars means it tried max power and got nothing.
3- Even though that one study found a correlation in that one group they measured, they go on to mention that there is ZERO causation.
4- "Radiation" can mean all kinds of things. That RADIATOR in your living room? It is putting out thermal radiation. Turn on your radio and hear music and talking? This shows that you are being bombarded by radiation, constantly, by the transmitters broadcasting the signal. Turn on a light? RADIATION!!
posted by gjc at 5:16 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
2- It is true that the "bars" on your phone (for GSM phones anyway) actually indicate the transmit power of the phone. Every 1.something seconds, the phone pings out to see if it has any calls or messages. If it receives no response, it ups the power and drops a bar. Zero bars means it tried max power and got nothing.
3- Even though that one study found a correlation in that one group they measured, they go on to mention that there is ZERO causation.
4- "Radiation" can mean all kinds of things. That RADIATOR in your living room? It is putting out thermal radiation. Turn on your radio and hear music and talking? This shows that you are being bombarded by radiation, constantly, by the transmitters broadcasting the signal. Turn on a light? RADIATION!!
posted by gjc at 5:16 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
A little back-of-the envelope math shows that the 3G cellular frequency (about 1750Mhz) has a wavelength of about 17 cm. (1,750,000,000Hz * .1714M = 300,000,000M/s (c))
So unless that sticker is as thick as two or three bricks, it's probably not going to block much of anything.
Not that you should worry- the most that UHF band radiation can do to you is heat water molecules. Unless you're noticing that the blood in your head literally boils whenever you bring your phone to your ear (and not just when it's a telemarketer,) you're perfectly safe.
posted by fifthrider at 7:10 AM on April 6, 2011
So unless that sticker is as thick as two or three bricks, it's probably not going to block much of anything.
Not that you should worry- the most that UHF band radiation can do to you is heat water molecules. Unless you're noticing that the blood in your head literally boils whenever you bring your phone to your ear (and not just when it's a telemarketer,) you're perfectly safe.
posted by fifthrider at 7:10 AM on April 6, 2011
If you're really worried about microwave emissions from your phone regardless of the mountains of evidence that they're safe, get a hands-free set and keep the phone a few inches away from you while you're making calls. Problem solved.
It's worth mentioning that if you get a Bluetooth headset, you haven't actually solved the problem since they have a radio transmitter in them, too.
You need to get a cabled handsfree kit to totally resolve any risk associated with not having a transmitter next to your head.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:56 AM on April 6, 2011
It's worth mentioning that if you get a Bluetooth headset, you haven't actually solved the problem since they have a radio transmitter in them, too.
You need to get a cabled handsfree kit to totally resolve any risk associated with not having a transmitter next to your head.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:56 AM on April 6, 2011
Pogo_Fuzzybutt: It's worth mentioning that if you get a Bluetooth headset, you haven't actually solved the problem since they have a radio transmitter in them, too.
This is not quite true. A Bluetooth headset uses much much lower transmit power than the cell phone radio. This is because the bluetooth radio only has to transmit within ~20ft, while the cell phone radio needs to transmit as far as 22 miles.
posted by thewildgreen at 8:52 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is not quite true. A Bluetooth headset uses much much lower transmit power than the cell phone radio. This is because the bluetooth radio only has to transmit within ~20ft, while the cell phone radio needs to transmit as far as 22 miles.
posted by thewildgreen at 8:52 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
They still make wired earbud/mic sets for mobile phones, and they're cheaper than that sticker.
posted by theora55 at 9:44 AM on April 6, 2011
posted by theora55 at 9:44 AM on April 6, 2011
This is not quite true. A Bluetooth headset uses much much lower transmit power than the cell phone radio. This is because the bluetooth radio only has to transmit within ~20ft, while the cell phone radio needs to transmit as far as 22 miles.
While that is sort of true - bluetooth headsets output upto 2.5 mW and cell phones ~250mW and usually much less. It's important to recall that reception distance isn't really driven by output power. The Voyager spacecraft are ~6 billion miles away and talking to us with a ~20 watt transmitter.
Point is, cell phones don't use that much power to transmit and in most situations output power is similar to that of a radio based (bluetooth) headset.
If you want to avoid radio transmitters near your head, you need to not put them near your head.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:48 AM on April 6, 2011
While that is sort of true - bluetooth headsets output upto 2.5 mW and cell phones ~250mW and usually much less. It's important to recall that reception distance isn't really driven by output power. The Voyager spacecraft are ~6 billion miles away and talking to us with a ~20 watt transmitter.
Point is, cell phones don't use that much power to transmit and in most situations output power is similar to that of a radio based (bluetooth) headset.
If you want to avoid radio transmitters near your head, you need to not put them near your head.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:48 AM on April 6, 2011
Imagine there was some sort of electromagnetic radiation that we knew caused cancer. For sake of an argument let's call this mysterious force "ultra-violet light" and say you could generate this invisible energy with an apparatus called "the sun."
Suppose I offered to sell you a special shield, about an inch across, that was demonstrated to be 100% UV opaque and would protect you from these known hazardous emissions. Would you buy one for $5...?
...because your health is important to us and we promise to have your quarter in the mail to you in fewer than five business days. Offer void in states with an alert and competent attorney general who knows something about physics.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:52 AM on April 6, 2011
Suppose I offered to sell you a special shield, about an inch across, that was demonstrated to be 100% UV opaque and would protect you from these known hazardous emissions. Would you buy one for $5...?
...because your health is important to us and we promise to have your quarter in the mail to you in fewer than five business days. Offer void in states with an alert and competent attorney general who knows something about physics.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:52 AM on April 6, 2011
There is no debate over whether cellphone radiation is harmful. It isn't.
Googling "is cellphone radiation harmful" produces about 1,390,000 results, ergo you are wrong, saeculorum.
And your second statement ("It isn't.") in no way contradicts your first statement. I happen to agree with your second assertion, but still: this added nothing to this conversation but controversy, and an invalid assertion.
posted by IAmBroom at 5:43 PM on April 6, 2011
Googling "is cellphone radiation harmful" produces about 1,390,000 results, ergo you are wrong, saeculorum.
And your second statement ("It isn't.") in no way contradicts your first statement. I happen to agree with your second assertion, but still: this added nothing to this conversation but controversy, and an invalid assertion.
posted by IAmBroom at 5:43 PM on April 6, 2011
A google search doesn't indicate valid debate. If you search for is the earth flt you get lots of page hits also, but the earth is not flat.
Cellphone transmissions (I can't call them radiation because people don't understand the word) are of low electropotentials. This means that it is non-ionizing. Any interaction with your matter would involve only a localized increase in molecular rotation, aka heat. If someone is afraid of heat I question how they take a shower or if they've ever been in a hot tub.
posted by koolkat at 6:52 AM on April 7, 2011
Cellphone transmissions (I can't call them radiation because people don't understand the word) are of low electropotentials. This means that it is non-ionizing. Any interaction with your matter would involve only a localized increase in molecular rotation, aka heat. If someone is afraid of heat I question how they take a shower or if they've ever been in a hot tub.
posted by koolkat at 6:52 AM on April 7, 2011
And now it's not debate, but "valid debate"... where clearly koolkat is the arbitrer of validity.
And in the next sentence, switch the argument off of debate entirely. I'll just give up trying to get you to see your own logical missteps.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:09 PM on April 8, 2011
And in the next sentence, switch the argument off of debate entirely. I'll just give up trying to get you to see your own logical missteps.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:09 PM on April 8, 2011
and 1+1=3 and e^(i*pi) -1 = 5 instead of zero. Some things are wrong and because some people think there is a debate doesn't make it any less wrong.
posted by koolkat at 12:00 PM on April 9, 2011
posted by koolkat at 12:00 PM on April 9, 2011
« Older How to ftp contents of a smartplaylist in iTunes... | Californian paternity and child support law Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
There is no valid use or function for that chip except to waste money.
posted by saeculorum at 10:17 PM on April 5, 2011 [6 favorites]