Startup Uses Radiation Fear To Map Cellphone Coverage 81
judgecorp writes "Fears that mobile phones cause cancer have never had strong backing from scientific research, but Israeli startup Tawkon is using those fears for an interesting business model. Its free app (banned from Apple's App Store, but on Android, BlackBerry and unlocked iPhones) tracks how much radiation your phone is emitting. This lets concerned users hold their phones away from their heads or whatever — but it also gives Tawkon a useful map of cellphone coverage around the world, which is the real asset it is monetizing — for the benefit of everyone, it says."
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the best-case scenario these people putting the phone on speaker and setting it on the center console? That gets it out of the shoulder/head/hands entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the best-case scenario these people putting the phone on speaker and setting it on the center console? That gets it out of the shoulder/head/hands entirely.
Ah, but there's a conflict between "wearing a tinfoil hat to keep the phone/government waves out of your brain" and "submitting to the government imposition on my freedom to phone however and whenever I want to". Tricky one.
Snake oil again? (Score:3)
...is using those fears for an interesting business model
So, it's the newest high-tech version of selling magic crystals, horoscopes, and wall plug nuclear electricity filters? Wow. That's classy.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that old saying?
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting questions are: What percentage of 1GHz penetrates more than 0.5 mm into the skin? how is it going to affect you if you don't feel any heat? If it doesn't make your eyeballs frost over, just how strong is the evil effect ?
Re: (Score:3)
how is it going to affect you if you don't feel any heat?
Gravity waves, obviously. You people with your electromagnetism-centric attitude.
Re: (Score:3)
The jury might want to study the effects of solar radiation and flashlights on people.
Do you think that "the jury" hasn't done a lot of study on solar radiation?
Some of the interesting things they have found is that the Electromagnetic radiation from the Sun has a big heating effect.
The UV output of the sun can damage the skin over long periods of time, leading to cancer in some cases.
The solar radiation also produces Vitamin D. There are interesting medical aspects of that, as highly pigmented humans, such as peopl eof African (and probably Indian) descent are in need of Vitamin D supp
Re: (Score:2)
I work in neurology research at a university- so far, the jury (data) hasn't decided yet. Increases in cellular calcium ion channel activity result from exposure to EMF. This includes L-type calcium channels in neurons.
Does that also happen if you go outside in daylight? How much activity do you see in daylight relative to a cellphone?
Re: (Score:2)
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
So what you are trying ot say is that most people are stupid, so cellphone radiation is harmless
This is why it becomes difficult to discuss the subject. It's almost like trying to argue with creationists.
But I get this all the time when trying to discuss the subject. I don't know what the effects are, but when you try to discuss it rationally, you are accused of either being stupid, a liberal, or that I'm wrong because I'm just wrong.
This is a valid argument? I always like to reduce things to a fundam
Re: (Score:2)
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
So what you are trying ot say is that most people are stupid, so cellphone radiation is harmless
Uh, no, you inferred that all on your own, presumably because you take an unpopular position in this debate, and therefore every mention is seen as either support or an attack.
What I'm trying to say is that nobody ever lost money betting on the fact that most people are stupid, and I stand by it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same problem we have with long term studies in the field of e.g. nutrition and probably the cause of all the cont
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How would you even correct for the changes in technology over time?
Maybe early cell phones did have problems but those giant analog things are also gone. The point is that it would no longer matter if you could figure out that a piece of technology that has been dead for more than 10 years could cause problems if anyone wanted to go to a museum and get one again.
The point is that this kind of study would be basically impossible to do long term since you would have to a group of people that stay with the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory XKCD reference [xkcd.com] OT, it depends on what your definition of "long term" is. Regardless of the provenance of the funding, such long term epidemiological studies are a huge can of worms due to the stupendous number of confounding variables. How would you, for instance, correct for the a) improved methods for (early) detection of cancer and b) our improved ways to fight cancer?
By comparing people who use cell phones to people who don't use cell phones over the same time period.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You asked about the effects of improved methods of detection and treatment.
Those were examples, as the words "for instance" usually implies.
Now you're throwing in other variables that add a little more complication.
Yes, I have plenty more complicating factors up my sleeve. "A little more" is a bit of an understatement. Quick reminder, the human body is in fact quite complicated.
What they would be attempting is to establish whether the alleged cause (cell phones) stands out above a background, so they have to measure the background too.
Sure. This is, however, where it gets messy. I would love to hear your ideas on how to "measure the background" in the your two proposed groups of people who do and don't use cell phones. Also, as a thought experiment: let's do your hopelessly simplified experiment. Group 1 with
Re: (Score:2)
To return the ad hominem; I think it's you who needs a bit of education in the field of basic biomedical science and particularly epidemiology, cohort studies and the statistical handling of confounders, bias and effect modification.
The test case, as you note, is extremely complicated. Background doses, types of useage. Some people text - a lot less EMR that way, as power falls off as the inverse square of the distance, some use the smartphone features, and others keep that phone placed 8 inches in front of the face, others against the ear.
There are multiple ethical issues also. Liability is a big problem.
At this point, we'll probably be seeing most studies done on cellular level - pun intended...., although there have been tests
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd be interested to see if there were any non-industry funded long term studies done with cell phone use and incidents of cancer. My guess is there probably aren't any because there would be no funding and if you found that it did cause cancer then you'd be ostracized as a quack the rest of your short career..
All anti-Industry paranoia aside, the re have been studies done on the effects of cell phones. And there have been some effects found.
The problem is that everyone here in America focuses on Cancer. That is really the single least likely effect of cell phone use. Cell phone electromagnetic radiation is not ionizing radiation, the type of radiation that we know can cause cancer.
Of more interest is the frequencies in use. especially the higher frequencies. 1.8-1.9 GHz, and 2.1 GHz. This is very near the f
Re: (Score:1)
All anti-Industry paranoia aside, the re have been studies done on the effects of cell phones. And there have been some effects found.
Yes, some very seriously methodologically flawed and/or underpowered studies.
So this is the background. The phones are little microwave producing machines.
If you're focussing on the 'microwave' part (meaning microwave as in the beeping machine we have in our kitchens): this is only true for the phones that have WiFi. Not for the traditional GSM-bands that have been in use the longest (900-1800MHz as opposed to 2.4GHz).
So now we have these little devices putting out around 2 watts maximum. And we are holding them in their near field, which is to say we're getting about their whole output, whatever it is at the time.
If your body would soak up "their whole output" your reception would be ZERO.
So there is possiblility of thermal heating effects.
Have you walked in the sun recently? Looked at a light bulb?
Cataracts are a possibility. I claim no cause/effect, because it is a sample of 1, but my S.O. has a cataract in her eye on the side that she uses her phone. And she spends hours a day on the phone. And she is very young to be having a cataract under any circumstances.
1 out of 4,500 children have ca
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand since your body is mostly water you can absorb a LOT of energy.
So long as your energy transfer rate with conduction and convection in an area are higher than your heating from radiation due to the cellphone you won't have any heating in the surrounding area. From what I can find human skin has a thermal conductivity about .37 W/(m K). That should easily be enough to keep up with a cellphone and that is without convection which is much higher.
I just don't see how a cell phone can physicall
Re: (Score:2)
That should easily be enough to keep up with a cellphone and that is without convection which is much higher.
Not just convection, but blood flow. The human body is liquid cooled, which is an incredibly efficient way to regulate heat.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that everyone here in America focuses on Cancer. That is really the single least likely effect of cell phone use. Cell phone electromagnetic radiation is not ionizing radiation, the type of radiation that we know can cause cancer.
This, people cant tell the difference between non-ionising "radio" radiation and ionising "cancer" radiation.
The worry warts will stress out about mobile phones and WiFi's harmless non-ionising radiation but are happy to remain completely oblivious to the larger than normal dose of cancer causing gamma rays* they get taking a flight.
* which is well within the acceptable limits of the amount of radiation the average person should receive per year. So again, nothing to worry about. Someone can post the
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal effects are indisputable, but do they mean anything?
Compared to going outside on a sunny day?
Or doing some exercise?
No. A cellphone pales into insignificance compared to those two.
(And there's plenty more - what about evil central heating systems??)
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal effects are indisputable, but do they mean anything?
Compared to going outside on a sunny day?
Or doing some exercise?
No. A cellphone pales into insignificance compared to those two.
(And there's plenty more - what about evil central heating systems??)
Comparing celll phone radiation to central heating systems certainly shows some ignorance of RF effects. Using that logic, you might as well argue that microwave ovens cant hurt you because we don't cook in the sun either. I do not know whether or not there is along term health issue. I had hoped that I had conveyed that in my earlier post, but people who don't believe that there is any possiblity don't really want to hear anything else, and will immediately assume that a person who is not with them is ag
Re: (Score:2)
"So this is the background. The phones are little microwave producing machines."
Not exactly. Microwave is by definition in the GHz range, cellphones typically operate in the MHz range.
Depends on the definition. Broadly speaking Microwaves run from arond 300 MHz to several hundred GHz. I just used the term because the frequencies overlap between the broad definition and the Electrical engineering definition. It doesn't really matter which definition you use, because all the frequencies in that range heat.
Because of the lower frequency cellphone signals are not nearly as energetic as microwaves (and would not be useful for heating food).
You might want to let these guys know: 915 MHZ ovens
http://www.industrialmicrowave.com/ [industrialmicrowave.com]
The thing is, it appears that a lot of slashdot users seem to think that you have to be at ho
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not snake oil ... they're leveraging the existing fear of emissions from cell phones to get paranoid people to help them map cell phone coverage.
If you're interested in this app, you already believe it's harmful -- it's just that the end goal is to use the crazies to map out the cell phone coverage, and that's where the money is.
Its crowd-sourcing by using people's own fears -- and they'll be happy to know how to minimize their exposure.
I'ts actually kind of funny, and it's like saying "well, if the he
Re:Banned from Apple? (Score:4, Informative)
I'd imagine it's "banned" for the same reason as wardriving apps: because they use undocumented calls to get low level info from the radios. It sounds like they appealed to Jobs himself, but he turned them down. I can't really blame him, as the app's two functions seem to be (a) scare you with BS and (b) spy on you.
App Store restrictions are a bit annoying, but less annoying than having to run an antivirus program on your phone. Power users can, at least, jailbreak.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish people would stop saying this. Rather, it should be "Power users can use something other than iOS devices." Apple does not want power users, particularly not those who would jailbreak as evidence by their recent push to have jailbreaking covered by the DMCA (and their success on Tablets) and increasingly aggressive efforts towards total lock down.
Jailbreaking is not a solution. The solution is using products from a vendor that doesn't treat you like a leper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trojan horse (Score:4, Funny)
It's not a Trojan Horse if you leave a note on the side saying: "This horse is full of armed Greek warriors. By bringing this horse into your city, you also agree to allow said warriors to kill and pillage any and all occupants of the afore-mentioned city". Either that, or the Trojans just didn't have good lawyers.
Jailbreak vs Unlock (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Jailbreak vs Unlock (Score:5, Funny)
The summary should say "jailbroken iPhones" instead of "unlocked iPhones". Jailbreaking allows unauthorized apps, unlocking allows SIM freedom.
If you want to be guaranteed radiation free, you could by a broken iPhone instead of a jailbroken one. Just remove the battery, and you can hold it to year head and talk into it as much as you like.
You'll have to talk a bit louder so that the person you are calling hears you.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to talk a bit louder so that the person you are calling hears you.
Just tie a piece of string between the two phones. I'm sure there's an app for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Jailbreaking allows app freedom, unlocking allows SIM freedom.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
But this "jailbreaking" term is tiring, it's in effect a pedantic and not so subtle way of boasting about owning an iphone.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the masses of people that get up in arms about irritating children every time that they want to build a cell tower. These same parents are perfectly fine with giving their children devices with transmitters to hold an inch from their brain, but a tower 1/4 mile away will give everybody cancer and must be stopped.
To be fair, I'm sure the output of the tower is a bit more than one mobile phone, and yes I do know about the inverse square law.
interesting typo in TFA (Score:2)
Possible carcinogen (Score:2)
This site notes that there is no link, but points out the WHO lists it as a "Possible carcinogen". Lets take a look at what else the WHO lists as "Possible carcinogens":
Coffee, dry cleaning, exhaust/gas, pickled vegatables, nickle... to name a few
[source: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf%5D [monographs.iarc.fr] 2B is prossible, 2A is probable
Re: (Score:1)
Cancer isn't particularly well-understood, and its causes are notoriously difficult to track. There are so many different causes and mechanistic pathways that even gigantic and expensive prospective longitudinal studies have difficulty detecting the effects of individual weak carcinogens.
Very clever (Score:2)
Using stupid people as robots...very smart indeed. The same thing could be done for wifi, or tracking the appearance of contrails. I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities previously unimagined due to insufficient cynicism.
I have to admire his chutzpah... (Score:2)
I can certainly see the monetary value in producing cell-phone coverage reports. And I have a hard time arguing with this method of collecting it. The user gets information that they find valuable (phone radiation emitted) in return for that information (with PII stripped, one would hope) being used for what the business would like to make money off of.
As long as they aren't actually asserting any conclusions as to the user's health, it's not even particularly misleading.
Definition of "benefit of everyone" (Score:2)
"Three benefits for me, one benefit for you...."
Never the idealized equal exchange of value that I was taught in Business Law 101. Nope, we get Highlander-style economics instead.
Re: (Score:2)
"Three benefits for me, one benefit for you...."
Are you talking about the app or about iPhone? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe both.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they are open about selling data about their users, I don't see an ethical problem. Most businesses do the same behind your back.
Tawkon is a pretty useful app (Score:3)
Not so much for protecting me from "radiation", but to keep battery consumption low: whenever the signal is weak, the phone compensates by increasing transmitting power, draining the battery in the process. If Tawkon warns me of strong transmitting field, I'll keep the conversation short.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's brilliant!
Might be on to something. (Score:4, Interesting)
While the fear mongering and data collection is a bit worrisome, they might actually be on to something here.
It would be very useful to have crowd-sourced maps of cell coverage, speeds, dropped calls, etc... Would certainly make the choice of provider a much more informed decision, instead of relying on their own coverage maps.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, why is this "news"? (Score:2)
Quote: Not allowed on iPhone after personal rejection by Steve Jobs
Yeah, this app is that old.