what would happen if cell phones could kill us?
March 14, 2016 4:45 PM Subscribe
(asking for an author pal!) This scifi writer wonders: If electromagnetic waves were linked to cancer, what systems (electronic/political/social) would be impacted, and how?
I’m writing a novel set in an alternate near-future world, in which a major study has drawn a definitive connection between electromagnetic waves and cancer. The world of the book takes place about 5-7 years after that connection was made, and I want the setting to reflect what changes would actually likely be made if a landmark study like that was released. Many people would deny (in the book, it’s just one major study, which has yet to be confirmed by others’ research), many people would overreact, and most people would at least begin showing preference for analog/retro systems.
I believe public spaces would be drastically altered almost immediately. For example, in the book (which is set in London), the electronic billboards in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere have gone dark and are slowly being replaced with plain paper alternatives. Electronic street lamps are being replaced by gas lamps; Morse code, records, and telegrams have come back into vogue. Cell phones are only used by nihilists, young people, and high-level businesspeople (think of it as akin to smoking).
I’ve got a great imagination, but I’m not so hot on the science front, including all the systems reliant on electromagnetism to exist. (I know. Like—I’m assuming computers, cell phones, most digital systems are among the things that would qualify. But even then I’m not sure.) I’d love help identifying what systems would be impacted, and what analog/retro systems they may be replaced by.
I’d also love to hear what other people think would happen, socially, politically, economically, if a bombshell study like that was released. My mom would wear tinfoil hats and retrofit a bomb shelter; my brother would hoard everyone’s electronics cast-offs to build himself a supercomputer on the cheap.
Thanks so much!
I’m writing a novel set in an alternate near-future world, in which a major study has drawn a definitive connection between electromagnetic waves and cancer. The world of the book takes place about 5-7 years after that connection was made, and I want the setting to reflect what changes would actually likely be made if a landmark study like that was released. Many people would deny (in the book, it’s just one major study, which has yet to be confirmed by others’ research), many people would overreact, and most people would at least begin showing preference for analog/retro systems.
I believe public spaces would be drastically altered almost immediately. For example, in the book (which is set in London), the electronic billboards in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere have gone dark and are slowly being replaced with plain paper alternatives. Electronic street lamps are being replaced by gas lamps; Morse code, records, and telegrams have come back into vogue. Cell phones are only used by nihilists, young people, and high-level businesspeople (think of it as akin to smoking).
I’ve got a great imagination, but I’m not so hot on the science front, including all the systems reliant on electromagnetism to exist. (I know. Like—I’m assuming computers, cell phones, most digital systems are among the things that would qualify. But even then I’m not sure.) I’d love help identifying what systems would be impacted, and what analog/retro systems they may be replaced by.
I’d also love to hear what other people think would happen, socially, politically, economically, if a bombshell study like that was released. My mom would wear tinfoil hats and retrofit a bomb shelter; my brother would hoard everyone’s electronics cast-offs to build himself a supercomputer on the cheap.
Thanks so much!
I suspect it'd be a lot like now, except with more shielding on things, and hardwired links instead of radio transmissions.
posted by zamboni at 4:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zamboni at 4:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
You may want to re-think your timing. I would find it very hard to believe that a landmark study couldn't be replicated faster than 5-7 years, or that people would take the study seriously enough to remove electronic systems but wouldn't have replicated the study in question.
I also find it hard to believe that the safety risks associated with the minimal amounts of EMF emitted by wired electrical lights would be greater than the serious safety concerns around gas lamps, which include fire and poor indoor air quality.
As far as what a world without electromagnetic waves would look like, look no further than the various news coverage about Green Bank, West Virginia.
posted by pie ninja at 5:01 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
I also find it hard to believe that the safety risks associated with the minimal amounts of EMF emitted by wired electrical lights would be greater than the serious safety concerns around gas lamps, which include fire and poor indoor air quality.
As far as what a world without electromagnetic waves would look like, look no further than the various news coverage about Green Bank, West Virginia.
posted by pie ninja at 5:01 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Most likely DC current would be used instead of AC. This would imply many more power generating stations much closer to points of use, and correspondingly higher prices for electricity.
posted by kindall at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kindall at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Medicine would change pretty dramatically for the worse. Phasing out medical imaging would have side effects, from the x-ray machines of the early 1900s, up to the MRI and CT scanners of today. Many injuries and diseases would become more difficult or impossible to diagnose, as a result.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Medicine would change pretty dramatically for the worse. Phasing out medical imaging would have side effects, from the x-ray machines of the early 1900s, up to the MRI and CT scanners of today. Many injuries and diseases would become more difficult or impossible to diagnose, as a result.
X-ray exposure isn't good for you, but we still do x-rays. It may be that the medical establishment would consider the risks of short term EM exposure for imaging acceptable if it enabled diagnosis and treatment.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
X-ray exposure isn't good for you, but we still do x-rays. It may be that the medical establishment would consider the risks of short term EM exposure for imaging acceptable if it enabled diagnosis and treatment.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I suspect it'd be a lot like now, except with more shielding on things, and hardwired links instead of radio transmissions.
Riffing on this - wifi and cellular transmissions would be out, so no more more mobile devices. Landlines and corded phones would see a resurgence.
No more mobile devices means that printed books and newspapers might also see a resurgence.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:30 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Riffing on this - wifi and cellular transmissions would be out, so no more more mobile devices. Landlines and corded phones would see a resurgence.
No more mobile devices means that printed books and newspapers might also see a resurgence.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:30 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clothing with built-in Faraday netting might become popular.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the challenge is that even with whatever bad effects we have from electricity, electronics, and wireless communications, some of that stuff has been in place for nearly a century, and here we are with the longest life expectancy humans have ever had.
posted by aubilenon at 5:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aubilenon at 5:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's not to say for sure none of these modern electronics cause cancer, just that it's certainly subtle, and at least in some ways, certainly safer than the alternatives.
Like using gas for all lighting: that'll make a lot more pollution, which will also cause cancer. Plus it's less convenient, more expensive, a greater fire hazard, and worse for climate change stuff than electric lighting.
posted by aubilenon at 5:40 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like using gas for all lighting: that'll make a lot more pollution, which will also cause cancer. Plus it's less convenient, more expensive, a greater fire hazard, and worse for climate change stuff than electric lighting.
posted by aubilenon at 5:40 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's all about the risk-benefit ratios. Many of the technologies which produce EMF replaced earlier technologies, but it's not accurate to assume that those technologies had no risks of their own.
Similarly, the risks involved in radiation exposure from X-rays or CT scans are outweighed by the benefits of improved diagnoses. The frequency recommendations might change, but the increased risk from EMF exposure would have to be extremely high to make the use of imaging studies in medicine obsolete.
Most likely DC current would be used instead of AC. This would imply many more power generating stations much closer to points of use
Or the use of household generators, which are already being developed -- buy your hydrogen fuel cell, run your home's generator to produce your own DC current.
posted by pie ninja at 5:41 PM on March 14, 2016
Similarly, the risks involved in radiation exposure from X-rays or CT scans are outweighed by the benefits of improved diagnoses. The frequency recommendations might change, but the increased risk from EMF exposure would have to be extremely high to make the use of imaging studies in medicine obsolete.
Most likely DC current would be used instead of AC. This would imply many more power generating stations much closer to points of use
Or the use of household generators, which are already being developed -- buy your hydrogen fuel cell, run your home's generator to produce your own DC current.
posted by pie ninja at 5:41 PM on March 14, 2016
The author will really want to narrow down what they mean by "electromagnetic waves," on account of electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental forces of the universe. But let's assume the the author is sticking to frequencies surrounding cell phones.
So let's introduce the author to...::drumroll::...the UNITED STATES FREQUENCY ALLOCATION CHAARRRRRT! (P.S. - This is the simple version.) This tells you what technology uses what frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum, as assigned by the U.S. government.
This range is from 3 kilohertz to 600 gigahertz and sits in the radio portion of the overall EM spectrum, well into the low-energy, non-visible range. These frequencies are more gentle than the light that hits your eyes.
The usable frequency allocation starts with ELF: Extremely Low Frequency and moves up from there. (Each wikipedia page linked in this paragraph gives examples of tech that is used in each level of frequency.) Cell phones sit in the SHF: Super-High Frequency section. Scary name! This is also where the EM wavelengths move up in energy into the microwave band (but still below infrared).
So, on the Frequency Allocation Chart look at what technology utilizes between 3 and 30 gigahertz for a good basis of what tech would need to be accounted for. This range includes space-to-Earth satellite communication and cell communication. This is actually ideal for a story in that you can just set the technology dial back to before satellite communication became regular, which is about the 1950s (not early 20th century).
BUT! There's a really easy fix here in that cell and satellite communication don't HAVE to use SHF frequencies and, in fact, the companies building cell phones and satellites don't WANT to be in the super-high frequency range because it's such a power drain on these portable devices. In fact, this year and next year there will be a spectrum auction and the mobile phone carriers will be pushing hard to take up the 30 to 300 megahertz lower-energy frequency range that broadcast television has been abandoning over the past two decades.
DOUBLE BUT! The author can find a way around this. So...essentially...they should think 1950s tech, but lighter and more efficiently designed. (Plastics!) I would also suggest using a setting 30 years after the cell-phone-cancer discovery, as then the author can use a setting where it's essentially the 1950s-but-with-internet, and they can write about the generation who has had to deal with the change and how they react to a generation that has always known a wireless-less world.
posted by greenland at 5:43 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
So let's introduce the author to...::drumroll::...the UNITED STATES FREQUENCY ALLOCATION CHAARRRRRT! (P.S. - This is the simple version.) This tells you what technology uses what frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum, as assigned by the U.S. government.
This range is from 3 kilohertz to 600 gigahertz and sits in the radio portion of the overall EM spectrum, well into the low-energy, non-visible range. These frequencies are more gentle than the light that hits your eyes.
The usable frequency allocation starts with ELF: Extremely Low Frequency and moves up from there. (Each wikipedia page linked in this paragraph gives examples of tech that is used in each level of frequency.) Cell phones sit in the SHF: Super-High Frequency section. Scary name! This is also where the EM wavelengths move up in energy into the microwave band (but still below infrared).
So, on the Frequency Allocation Chart look at what technology utilizes between 3 and 30 gigahertz for a good basis of what tech would need to be accounted for. This range includes space-to-Earth satellite communication and cell communication. This is actually ideal for a story in that you can just set the technology dial back to before satellite communication became regular, which is about the 1950s (not early 20th century).
BUT! There's a really easy fix here in that cell and satellite communication don't HAVE to use SHF frequencies and, in fact, the companies building cell phones and satellites don't WANT to be in the super-high frequency range because it's such a power drain on these portable devices. In fact, this year and next year there will be a spectrum auction and the mobile phone carriers will be pushing hard to take up the 30 to 300 megahertz lower-energy frequency range that broadcast television has been abandoning over the past two decades.
DOUBLE BUT! The author can find a way around this. So...essentially...they should think 1950s tech, but lighter and more efficiently designed. (Plastics!) I would also suggest using a setting 30 years after the cell-phone-cancer discovery, as then the author can use a setting where it's essentially the 1950s-but-with-internet, and they can write about the generation who has had to deal with the change and how they react to a generation that has always known a wireless-less world.
posted by greenland at 5:43 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Given that the alternatives to electricity are all worse even with cancer I'd suggest people would wear a lot of EM shielding. Foil-lined jackets, hats, etc. Maybe radios would get phased out somewhat. People would throw away microwave ovens. You'd get wired ethernet jacks everywhere for internet access.
posted by GuyZero at 5:45 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by GuyZero at 5:45 PM on March 14, 2016
I would suggest that having this in the near future of this world is implausible, in that we have entire generations that have been exposed to lots of electromagnetic fields for decades and not suffered a tremendous increase in cancer and that setting it in the 50s or 60s would be better. If EM was actually highly harmful to the degree that street lights were being replaced with carbon burning sources which we *know* is messing up the environment in huge ways, there's no way we would have advanced to the point of having ubiquitous cell phones.
At this point, you'd be looking at mass starvation, sickness, and unemployment without electronics - much larger changes than what you're describing.
I’ve got a great imagination, but I’m not so hot on the science front
I have tremendous problems suspension of disbelief, but may not be the target audience. I generally don't enjoy sci-fi books where the author is not technically versed with the key concepts of the book, because I spend more time debunking the science rather than enjoying the plot.
posted by Candleman at 5:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
At this point, you'd be looking at mass starvation, sickness, and unemployment without electronics - much larger changes than what you're describing.
I’ve got a great imagination, but I’m not so hot on the science front
I have tremendous problems suspension of disbelief, but may not be the target audience. I generally don't enjoy sci-fi books where the author is not technically versed with the key concepts of the book, because I spend more time debunking the science rather than enjoying the plot.
posted by Candleman at 5:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it would take a long time for people to react strongly. People have known about cancer and cigarettes since the 60's but people still smoke in public places and could smoke in the work place until 2004.
Lots of people would head to remote places to escape the problem.
posted by ReluctantViking at 5:54 PM on March 14, 2016
Lots of people would head to remote places to escape the problem.
posted by ReluctantViking at 5:54 PM on March 14, 2016
I think it would take a long time for people to react strongly. People have known about cancer and cigarettes since the 60's but people still smoke in public places and could smoke in the work place until 2004.
But! Perhaps the electronics industry, like the tobacco industry, could have spent years and millions of dollars in an attempt to suppress the findings as long as possible.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:59 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
But! Perhaps the electronics industry, like the tobacco industry, could have spent years and millions of dollars in an attempt to suppress the findings as long as possible.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:59 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, fatalities from EM fields? This must be a vampire book waiting to happen. Yes? Kapow! Sunshine! Kablooie! Infrared!
posted by instamatic at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by instamatic at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2016
if it was a particular frequency from cellphones, then that might narrow it down. Also certain segments of the population (early adopters, wealthy), would get it first. Quite the opposite of most cancers.
posted by nickggully at 6:41 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by nickggully at 6:41 PM on March 14, 2016
Many, many companies would be driven out of business by class action lawsuits. It would make the asbestos suits look tiny by comparison.
Almost certainly it would lead to a huge economic downturn because of all the former employees who no longer had jobs. But the plaintiff lawyers would make out like bandits.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:19 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Almost certainly it would lead to a huge economic downturn because of all the former employees who no longer had jobs. But the plaintiff lawyers would make out like bandits.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:19 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If electromagnetic waves were linked to cancer, what systems (electronic/political/social) would be impacted, and how?
The problem with this is that 'electromagnetic waves' is pretty hand-wavy. The electromagnetic spectrum covers the frequency ranges from sub-sonic, through various radio frequencies, infra-red, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
The various frequencies have very different energy levels, penetrating powers and properties. This would be far more plausible if you referred to a narrower range of frequencies and power levels.
As an example, we know that X rays can be quite dangerous, but their penetration through air is much worse than that for radio waves & light. So it makes a big difference what sort of radiation you're talking about, what the power levels are, and how far away you are.
I believe public spaces would be drastically altered almost immediately. For example, in the book (which is set in London), the electronic billboards in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere have gone dark and are slowly being replaced with plain paper alternatives.
Why? You need to make a distinction between devices which use electromagnetism internally, and those that radiate them - the former will have some leakage radiation [unless deliberately shielded], but the power levels will be very low, and because of the inverse square law, it's not plausible that the power levels from something viewed at a distance such as a public billboard would be a concern.
Stuff that leaks electromagnetic radiation can be shielded much more cheaply than throwing away the technology wholesale would achieve.
Cell phones are another issue entirely - not only do they intentionally radiate [in fact they rely on this to work at all], but they do so while held close to the body. In energy terms a cellphone would expose you to on the order of 10 to 100 million times the power level that you'd get from an electronic billboard.
Electronic street lamps are being replaced by gas lamps
Why? If the problem is 'electromagnetic waves' you shouldn't be producing light at all [yes, light from a gas lamp is just as electromagnetic as that from an electric lamp]. Street lamps are a non-problem because 1) they use VERY low frequencies [50 or 60 Hz], 2) Their emission levels [other than light] are infinitesimal, 3) They are way up in the air - the inverse square law limits your exposure, 4) If there was a problem, you could easily run them off DC.
Morse code, records, and telegrams have come back into vogue.
Why? High speed wired data communication is not a significant radiator - if it was it would be very inefficient, and in any case we have fibre optics as an alternative that's orders of magnitude more efficient than morse telegraphy.
Note - Everywhere I've referred to 'radiation' I mean electromagnetic radiation, which is not the same thing as radioactivity.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
The problem with this is that 'electromagnetic waves' is pretty hand-wavy. The electromagnetic spectrum covers the frequency ranges from sub-sonic, through various radio frequencies, infra-red, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
The various frequencies have very different energy levels, penetrating powers and properties. This would be far more plausible if you referred to a narrower range of frequencies and power levels.
As an example, we know that X rays can be quite dangerous, but their penetration through air is much worse than that for radio waves & light. So it makes a big difference what sort of radiation you're talking about, what the power levels are, and how far away you are.
I believe public spaces would be drastically altered almost immediately. For example, in the book (which is set in London), the electronic billboards in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere have gone dark and are slowly being replaced with plain paper alternatives.
Why? You need to make a distinction between devices which use electromagnetism internally, and those that radiate them - the former will have some leakage radiation [unless deliberately shielded], but the power levels will be very low, and because of the inverse square law, it's not plausible that the power levels from something viewed at a distance such as a public billboard would be a concern.
Stuff that leaks electromagnetic radiation can be shielded much more cheaply than throwing away the technology wholesale would achieve.
Cell phones are another issue entirely - not only do they intentionally radiate [in fact they rely on this to work at all], but they do so while held close to the body. In energy terms a cellphone would expose you to on the order of 10 to 100 million times the power level that you'd get from an electronic billboard.
Electronic street lamps are being replaced by gas lamps
Why? If the problem is 'electromagnetic waves' you shouldn't be producing light at all [yes, light from a gas lamp is just as electromagnetic as that from an electric lamp]. Street lamps are a non-problem because 1) they use VERY low frequencies [50 or 60 Hz], 2) Their emission levels [other than light] are infinitesimal, 3) They are way up in the air - the inverse square law limits your exposure, 4) If there was a problem, you could easily run them off DC.
Morse code, records, and telegrams have come back into vogue.
Why? High speed wired data communication is not a significant radiator - if it was it would be very inefficient, and in any case we have fibre optics as an alternative that's orders of magnitude more efficient than morse telegraphy.
Note - Everywhere I've referred to 'radiation' I mean electromagnetic radiation, which is not the same thing as radioactivity.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
We've known for decades that smoking causes cancer and that eating too much crap kills you from heart disease and diabetes, yet we still smoke and still eat too much crap, and our culture/way of life is way more reliant on cellular technology than we are on nicotine or french fries.
On a near future timeline, the only ones caring about cell phone cancer are going to be the liberal fringe, the same way as when I was a kid, nonsmokers were pansies, and the same way we all got are lols on about that moon juice bee pollen eating lady from that FPP a few weeks ago.
Very little would actually change.
You'd probably start to see Faraday cage cafes and people would go on letter writing cleanses, but on a timeline <20 years out, only the weirdos will care.
posted by phunniemee at 7:44 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
On a near future timeline, the only ones caring about cell phone cancer are going to be the liberal fringe, the same way as when I was a kid, nonsmokers were pansies, and the same way we all got are lols on about that moon juice bee pollen eating lady from that FPP a few weeks ago.
Very little would actually change.
You'd probably start to see Faraday cage cafes and people would go on letter writing cleanses, but on a timeline <20 years out, only the weirdos will care.
posted by phunniemee at 7:44 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, and I actually think that might be a more interesting book, as phunniemee outline it.
posted by instamatic at 7:54 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by instamatic at 7:54 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you might have to come up with something other than cancer if you want (believable) huge society-wide changes. Practically everyone has at least one bad habit that's "connected" to cancer already....the important factor is how much the risk is increased.
For people to even consider giving up cellphones, you'd have to have a very large increase (as much as smoking or even higher), the risk would have to be proven definitively (which takes time), and then you'd have to convince the readers that such a huge risk increase was somehow missed by everyone for decades. It's been a long, long time since a major risk factor on the order of smoking was discovered in cancer. Most of the ones being discovered recently are things like a 10% increased lifetime risk (i.e. still very low risk) of getting a certain kind of cancer if you eat a lot of a particular thing....in other words, not really information that's going to make most people change their behaviour at all.
posted by randomnity at 10:13 PM on March 14, 2016
For people to even consider giving up cellphones, you'd have to have a very large increase (as much as smoking or even higher), the risk would have to be proven definitively (which takes time), and then you'd have to convince the readers that such a huge risk increase was somehow missed by everyone for decades. It's been a long, long time since a major risk factor on the order of smoking was discovered in cancer. Most of the ones being discovered recently are things like a 10% increased lifetime risk (i.e. still very low risk) of getting a certain kind of cancer if you eat a lot of a particular thing....in other words, not really information that's going to make most people change their behaviour at all.
posted by randomnity at 10:13 PM on March 14, 2016
Not science, but in the interest of background research, this topic is briefly and humorously raised in the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall. How can a mobile phone have an agenda?
posted by BusyBusyBusy at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2016
posted by BusyBusyBusy at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2016
Electrical equipment can emit EM radiation if it is not properly shielded. Your world may still choose to harness electrical devices, but these may be treated with far more caution, much like we treat ionizing radiation and nuclear materials now. A damaged electrical machine or component could silently poison nearby unshielded people. If electricity is still a big part of this world, I'd expect people to wear full-body Faraday-cage clothing, and carry sensitive radio wave detectors at all times.
Electrical devices are really simple, and have been around for hundreds of years. Wireless radio waves were discovered almost 200 years ago. All you need is a magnet and some wire to generate a current. What if it's too much hassle to outfit everyone with Faraday clothing and detectors? Maybe only the wealthy can afford such a wardrobe. In that case, people may decide that electrical devices must be banned. But, it's not very hard to make an emitter, which would be an incredibly dangerous terrorist weapon. So, maybe that knowledge is now censored, and there are secret police who suppress this knowledge, and who must respond to electrical terrorism emergencies. Academics studying say, chemistry, or magnetism, or radioactivity, are uncomfortably close to the knowledge of how to make dangerous electrical devices. Maybe some of them actually are permitted to use electrical equipment, but it's all tightly controlled, you need special licenses and facilities to use something like an electron microscope or mass spectrometer.
If this is the near future when this discovery is made, there might be huge roundups of dangerous technology, but there will still be lethal devices overlooked, in abandoned homes, in the back corner of the attic, buried in junkyards, etc.
posted by rustcrumb at 9:29 AM on March 15, 2016
Electrical devices are really simple, and have been around for hundreds of years. Wireless radio waves were discovered almost 200 years ago. All you need is a magnet and some wire to generate a current. What if it's too much hassle to outfit everyone with Faraday clothing and detectors? Maybe only the wealthy can afford such a wardrobe. In that case, people may decide that electrical devices must be banned. But, it's not very hard to make an emitter, which would be an incredibly dangerous terrorist weapon. So, maybe that knowledge is now censored, and there are secret police who suppress this knowledge, and who must respond to electrical terrorism emergencies. Academics studying say, chemistry, or magnetism, or radioactivity, are uncomfortably close to the knowledge of how to make dangerous electrical devices. Maybe some of them actually are permitted to use electrical equipment, but it's all tightly controlled, you need special licenses and facilities to use something like an electron microscope or mass spectrometer.
If this is the near future when this discovery is made, there might be huge roundups of dangerous technology, but there will still be lethal devices overlooked, in abandoned homes, in the back corner of the attic, buried in junkyards, etc.
posted by rustcrumb at 9:29 AM on March 15, 2016
Electrical devices are really simple, and have been around for hundreds of years.
Well, about 150 years. Volta's pile, the first battery, was 1800, but that was just a toy.
The first practical dynamo dates to 1860. The "War of the Currents" was in the 1880's. Widespread use of electricity only really begins after Westinghouse won the war of the currents over Edison.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:02 PM on March 15, 2016
Well, about 150 years. Volta's pile, the first battery, was 1800, but that was just a toy.
The first practical dynamo dates to 1860. The "War of the Currents" was in the 1880's. Widespread use of electricity only really begins after Westinghouse won the war of the currents over Edison.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:02 PM on March 15, 2016
most digital systems are among the things that would qualify. But even then I’m not sure.) I’d love help identifying what systems would be impacted, and what analog/retro systems they may be replaced by.
You're not looking at a digital/analog binary choice here. Morse code is digital, we had analog cellphones for more than 20 years.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 6:17 PM on March 15, 2016
You're not looking at a digital/analog binary choice here. Morse code is digital, we had analog cellphones for more than 20 years.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 6:17 PM on March 15, 2016
We could survive without high-power RF. Cell phones and laptops would have to plug in to get any data, and over-the-air TV and radio would have to stop (but they're almost dead anyway). A lot of electronics would have to be made so they leak very little RF, but that's doable, just a bit pricey. I mean, it would be a crisis, but not a big enough deal to make an interesting plot I think.
What if in the story people get into really cyborg-y body modification? Like neural interfaces, embedded IDs, super-eyes, cosmetic stuff. And THAT stuff becomes a requirement for modern life, but turns out to kill you slowly too. That seems a lot more believable and like better fodder for a sci-fi story.
posted by miyabo at 8:12 PM on March 15, 2016
What if in the story people get into really cyborg-y body modification? Like neural interfaces, embedded IDs, super-eyes, cosmetic stuff. And THAT stuff becomes a requirement for modern life, but turns out to kill you slowly too. That seems a lot more believable and like better fodder for a sci-fi story.
posted by miyabo at 8:12 PM on March 15, 2016
« Older Did immigrants apprentice their kids to pay for... | Panic attacks. Taking many meds. Can I take a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]