Radiation Stickers

Well, well, look at what I stumbled onto on eBay. (Warning – PDF).

If you do a search for “radiation sticker”, you’ll find a whole bunch of these. They appear to be adhesive metal plates that are supposed to reduce the amount of radiation coming from a mobile phone. Apparently people don’t realize that the “evil radiation” is what actually makes the phones, you know, do something.

8 Responses to “Radiation Stickers”

  1. BrianN says:

    Yeah, I had linked to this on facebook because I thought it was so funny
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&hpw

    I just love it when the same people start attacking others for “scientific illiteracy” and try to make San Fransisco out as some sort of bastion of forward thinking.

    My favorite logic is the idea that if the cell phone companies don’t want to display the radiation level, it must mean there is something to the thing that after 20 years no one can seem to prove.

  2. Ed says:

    Welcome To Bid

  3. Adam says:

    Wasn’t this all the rage in the late 1900s. I remember watching many national news prorgams on the subject and Motorola started using it in its advertising for the Startac.

  4. BrianN says:

    @Adam

    It all started in the mid 80’s when a radiologist noticed that one of his patients (an early adopter of cell phones) had a tumor in a similar shape as his phone’s antenna.

    25 years later, research shows it was just a coincidence. But no statistical test can prove absolutely that there is no link between brain cancer and cell phone use, and every scientist’s press release will say something along those lines even if a high correlation has been certainly excluded… And so it goes on.

  5. matt says:

    @Adam

    I love the phrase “the late 1900s”. Makes me think of listening to Nirvana albums while wearing sleeve garters and a bowler hat.

    @BrianN

    Isn’t this similar to the whole vaccine-autism thing, where one misstatement in a report fifteen years ago has ballooned into a maelstrom of bad science?

  6. BrianN says:

    @Matt

    Yeah, and the dangers of GMOs and several other things. What’s funny is that the NYT devotes so much time to going after “bad science” in the form of creationism, but then give ample space to these kinds of crackpots.

  7. Pitt says:

    Radiation is bad for you? Pernicious nonsense. Everyone could stand a hundred chest x-rays a year!

    What I had heard was the early cell phones did put out really, really high levels of radiation, but newer models were much less. Obviously, less radiation is better, right? I mean, I don’t know about you, but I don’t sit on top of my microwave when its running. Call me paranoid if you will.

  8. Pitt says:

    @Brian,

    How dare you badmouth San Francisco! You’d better watch out, or they’ll send their Gayroller 2000 after you!

Leave a Reply