Home > Uncategorized > Stupidity on Parade

Stupidity on Parade

March 21, 2010
From my photo album; FAIL

Though it is included with our Sunday paper, I normally ignore Parade magazine; it only annoys me.  Typically the cover is some celebrity who has found peace or whatever, and the articles are along that line.  On today’s cover, a young woman named Miley Cyrus says “I know who I am now”; she looks indistinguishable from most high school girls, perhaps because they are imitating her.

This morning I spotted the cover headline next to Miley’s Photoshopped picture, which read; “How Safe Is Your Cellphone?”  Fearing the worst, I picked up the rag and turned to the article.

I suppose I should be inured to this kind of stupidity by now, but the teaser reads “New studies on radiation levels are troubling”, and there’s a scary radiation symbol and an x-ray skeleton hand holding a cell phone.  Just in case you’re too dumb to be frightened, there’s a little arrow showing that the scary radiation is coming from inside the cell phone in the scary skeleton hand.

First, the “new studies” on “radiation levels” are not really troubling… because of the kind of radiation involved.  When most people say “radiation” they mean “ionizing radiation” which is capable of breaking chemical bonds, such as those in DNA molecules, which could lead to cancer.  That’s the kind of radiation you find above the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum, starting at ultraviolet, going up through x-rays and gamma rays.  It’s the kind of radiation that made the skeleton-hand picture, and the kind that is referred to by the scary radiation symbol.

Cell phones work below the visible part of the spectrum, and below infrared, in the low end of the microwave region above radio .  Microwave radiation does not break chemical bonds, any more than warmth from a fire does.  At the milliwatt energy densities your cell phone can produce, you may – or may not – be able to detect slight warming from the signal but you are more likely to notice the infrared and conductive heat from chemical reactions in the battery.

The article is written by “Dr. Ranit Mishori”, a family practitioner MD who probably makes more money writing sensational stories for the Washington Post and Parade than she ever will telling people “Turn your head and cough”.  Dr. Mishori admits that cell phones make the wrong kind of radiation to break chemical bonds, and that studies have found no link between cell phone use and brain cancer.  She admits there’s been no change in incidence of brain cancer.  But still she says “more studies are needed”.

While they’re at it, they should study whether exposure to any temperature above absolute zero causes cancer too, because infrared is above microwave on the electromagnetic spectrum.  Light bulbs and space heaters could be our doom.  A fireplace?  Forget it – more studies are needed.

For that matter, avoid all visible light!  Best to cover yourself entirely in aluminum foil and breathe through a bendy-straw.

Dr. Mishori concludes with “Tips for smart cellphone use”:

  • Save cellphones for short conversations—and use them only when a landline is not available. 
  • Switch to hands-free devices or the speaker feature.
  • Text more, speak less.
  • Limit the time your child spends talking on a cellphone.
  • Buy models with low SAR ratings. (The SAR number is provided by the manufacturer.)

That section should be titled: “Tips for ignorantly fearful cellphone use”.  There’s a terrible price to pay for this kind of stupidity; if people can’t sort out sensational fears from real dangers, they can be easily manipulated.  And Parade is not helping.

NOTES:

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. March 21, 2010 at 21:59 | #1

    A quick Google search finds Dr. Ranit Mishori (a gynecologist) and family practitioner. While I guess its possible she could be well informed in other areas, studying how cell phones react with our brains and bodies does not appear to be in her field. So that leaves me a little skeptical. Then everything else George brings up and I have no reason to listen to her about this.

    Her tip to use a landline is just asinine and from a financial point makes no sense. Having a landline phone is horribly expensive when you already have a cell phone you pay for. We are getting to the point where cell phone minutes are practically free.

    If she was my family doctor I think I might go seek someone else. Not that I wouldn’t trust her per-say on general medical advice, but I want someone that thinks a little more to check on me. Especially when the really odd stuff comes up.

  2. March 21, 2010 at 22:19 | #2

    What really worries me is that many legislators seem to think that the popular press is a good source of scientific information.  I don’t expect them to read peer-reviewed journals (they’re over my head too), but I’d be thrilled to see a congresscritter reading Scientific American or even National Geographic.  But I often have reason to wonder if congresscritters read anything but polls.  And what are the influences on public opinion?…

    Circulation of Scientific American is 676,000 monthly
    Circulation of National Geographic is 1.5 million monthly
    Circulation of Parade is 33 million weekly
    Percentage of American adults who watch Fox News: 25

  3. March 22, 2010 at 08:24 | #3

    It is really sad that a politician would be more worried about being re-elected than doing the right thing. Makes me think that term limits across the board might be a good thing. At least in that last term some really good stuff could happen.

  4. Michael
    March 22, 2010 at 10:42 | #4

    What, she isn’t worried about the “radiation” from the Bluetooth transmitter strapped to your ear? (“Switch to hands-free devices”)

    Hmm, that must be a different kind of radiation….

  5. Karen
    March 23, 2010 at 20:29 | #5

    I can see how using a cellphone while driving can prevent cancer, heart disease, and many other illnesses.  It can prevent them in those you hit, too.  Nothing like a high-speed car crash to make you invincible to all illnesses (except organic decay) forever.

  6. Karen
    March 23, 2010 at 20:35 | #6

    I am also among the minority of cell phone users who believe that Bluetooth is not the answer.  I don’t do two things well at once, and driving is NOT something I willingly do less than well.  Driving and talking on the phone is just too complicated.  Driving and talking with a passenger is waaay different—s/he can see what my sudden silence/swearwords are about—but that doesn’t translate over the phone.

    So, although I have one, I use my bluetooth NEVER.  I NEVER answer the phone while I’m driving.  And I pull off and park before making a call.  I know ME.  The world (including me) is safer this way.

  7. alex
    March 26, 2010 at 21:33 | #7

    Right on the money! It is so rare to hear this common sense on this subject!

  8. July 25, 2010 at 07:40 | #8

    There is a lot of mis-information believed by fools.
    Who are to lazy to research and learn for themselves.

Comments are closed.