3 ms·

So for the authors of the study, claiming health hazards would be reckless, but for journalists, writing a FUD piece in the guise of a science article is just p

So for the authors of the study, claiming health hazards would be reckless, but for journalists, writing a FUD piece in the guise of a science article is just playing it safe.

robg 16y ago
Can you point to any of their recommendations that are clearly wrong or even FUD-worthy? The piece to me reads as bunch of claims that I didn't know: If a headset isn’t feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. But today’s ubiquitous smartphones emit even more radiation as they transmit more, and more complex, data. Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their “digital handshake.” To reduce exposure it’s best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear. During the ensuing conversation, it’s advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening. Moreover, your cellphone emits less when you are stationary because when you are moving rapidly — say, in a car or train — it must repeatedly issue little bursts of radiation to make digital handshakes with different towers as it moves in and out of range. Any situation where your cellphone has a weak signal indicates it has to work harder and thus will emit more radiation. I'll leave it to the Google-fu of the HN community to weigh these claims. But the reporter has cited expertise where necessary. That's far beyond what I find on blogs or forums, including this one. In a evolving field of science, isn't that the best we can hope for?
- GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
  One of my colleagues was telling me yesterday that similar information (e.g. keep the phone away from the ear) can be found buried at the very end of the iPhone manual.

So for the authors of the study, claiming health hazards would be reckless, but for journalists, writing a FUD piece in the guise of a science article is just playing it safe.

robg 16y ago

Can you point to any of their recommendations that are clearly wrong or even FUD-worthy? The piece to me reads as bunch of claims that I didn't know: If a headset isn’t feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. But today’s ubiquitous smartphones emit even more radiation as they transmit more, and more complex, data. Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their “digital handshake.” To reduce exposure it’s best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear. During the ensuing conversation, it’s advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening. Moreover, your cellphone emits less when you are stationary because when you are moving rapidly — say, in a car or train — it must repeatedly issue little bursts of radiation to make digital handshakes with different towers as it moves in and out of range. Any situation where your cellphone has a weak signal indicates it has to work harder and thus will emit more radiation. I'll leave it to the Google-fu of the HN community to weigh these claims. But the reporter has cited expertise where necessary. That's far beyond what I find on blogs or forums, including this one. In a evolving field of science, isn't that the best we can hope for?

GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
One of my colleagues was telling me yesterday that similar information (e.g. keep the phone away from the ear) can be found buried at the very end of the iPhone manual.