4 ms·

> it's of course very silly Beg to differ -- this is quite valuable as a new kind of paging device that you want to keep around instead of your higher end iPho

> it's of course very silly Beg to differ -- this is quite valuable as a new kind of paging device that you want to keep around instead of your higher end iPhone's battery constantly draining, and more importantly, for people who'd like to keep radiation at a distance. (Yeah, no, I'm not saying you should keep away from radiation, just that some people do prefer to and it's therefore a market segment.)

bobthepanda 2y ago
Doesn’t the watch also emit radiation?
- achrono 2y ago
  Yes, but this way of ensconcing it reduces the radiation exposure since the device now likely won't be kept constantly in contact with the body.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    You don't plan to carry this in a pocket?
    - Naracion 2y ago
      I think their point is pocket as opposed to against wrist the whole time.
      - iszomer 2y ago
        Or hanging around your neck with a lanyard.
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        Isn't the biggest danger to your reproductive organs anyway? That would make the pocket the worst location.
        throwanem 2y ago
        You would certainly notice if your genitals were absorbing enough energy via RF emissions to pose any kind of hazard. You would probably notice long before that threshold.
  - fsmv 2y ago
    That makes no sense. Phones and watches mostly use 4g and wifi band signals which both go through thin plastic shells and indeed your entire body without interference.
    - achrono 2y ago
      Distance decreases the intensity of exposure. I'm not trying to achieve complete avoidance, just a decrease of risk. To those who down-voted (actually or even as a psychological reaction) my original comment: consider for a moment that while this might be a fringe opinion, it is not without some evidence. https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph... If you think rats getting cancer from radiation is not relevant evidence, that's your personal opinion, not the most scientifically validated hypothesis.
      - throwanem 2y ago
        From the linked NIH page about the study (via the Wayback Machine): > “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.” 'Beware the man of one study.'
        achrono 2y ago
        Sure, but is causing a little damage to a tiny part of the body acceptable? Exposure levels and durations -- common sense would suggest those are going up with people using more devices for more time every day. I was not inclined to believe this whole radiation business for such reasons too -- "it's one study", "if it were so bad this would make front-page of the NYT", "entire labs of scientists and governments cannot be lying about this", "it's non-ionizing radiation, that's why it's safe you idiot!" etc. What made me look a little deeper was Huberman's AMA on EMF. It's become fashionable to dunk on him now but it gave me a pause in that I began to wonder if there might be some merit to this after all. Ultimately, this is like assessing the evidence for any other controversial topic -- unless you're working in R&D on radiation yourself, individual retail consumers of research like us can rely on the published evidence only to a certain extent. Beyond that, it's your priors, risk thresholds and heuristics for who to trust that will determine what you believe.

bobthepanda 2y ago

Doesn’t the watch also emit radiation?

achrono 2y ago
Yes, but this way of ensconcing it reduces the radiation exposure since the device now likely won't be kept constantly in contact with the body.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  You don't plan to carry this in a pocket?
  - Naracion 2y ago
    I think their point is pocket as opposed to against wrist the whole time.
    - iszomer 2y ago
      Or hanging around your neck with a lanyard.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        Isn't the biggest danger to your reproductive organs anyway? That would make the pocket the worst location.
        throwanem 2y ago
        You would certainly notice if your genitals were absorbing enough energy via RF emissions to pose any kind of hazard. You would probably notice long before that threshold.
- fsmv 2y ago
  That makes no sense. Phones and watches mostly use 4g and wifi band signals which both go through thin plastic shells and indeed your entire body without interference.
  - achrono 2y ago
    Distance decreases the intensity of exposure. I'm not trying to achieve complete avoidance, just a decrease of risk. To those who down-voted (actually or even as a psychological reaction) my original comment: consider for a moment that while this might be a fringe opinion, it is not without some evidence. https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph... If you think rats getting cancer from radiation is not relevant evidence, that's your personal opinion, not the most scientifically validated hypothesis.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      From the linked NIH page about the study (via the Wayback Machine): > “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.” 'Beware the man of one study.'
      - achrono 2y ago
        Sure, but is causing a little damage to a tiny part of the body acceptable? Exposure levels and durations -- common sense would suggest those are going up with people using more devices for more time every day. I was not inclined to believe this whole radiation business for such reasons too -- "it's one study", "if it were so bad this would make front-page of the NYT", "entire labs of scientists and governments cannot be lying about this", "it's non-ionizing radiation, that's why it's safe you idiot!" etc. What made me look a little deeper was Huberman's AMA on EMF. It's become fashionable to dunk on him now but it gave me a pause in that I began to wonder if there might be some merit to this after all. Ultimately, this is like assessing the evidence for any other controversial topic -- unless you're working in R&D on radiation yourself, individual retail consumers of research like us can rely on the published evidence only to a certain extent. Beyond that, it's your priors, risk thresholds and heuristics for who to trust that will determine what you believe.