backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by BillyBatson.. on Jan 17 at 2:23 PM


  (Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC)
Scientifically baseless lies and attacks are inexcusable; CEA should take note and ban Santor/Dexim

The 2014 Consumer Electronics Show (CES 2014) has come and gone and there's plenty to be excited about.  But after a week of reflection I feel compelled to speak out about something I saw at the opening "Unveiled" event.

I. Digital Snake Oil

The culprit was Shenzhen, China-based Santom Ltd. -- a company who also goes by the name "Dexim" (maybe they're two different companies, but in the Americas, the company's full name is "dexim Santom USA Inc."  At the Unveiled event they made the sensational claim to have a product that protects you from:
  • leukemia
  • bone cancer
  • skin cancer
  • ephysema
  • bronchitis
  • ... and more!
Santor flier lies

How do they do this?  They put a cover on the back of your cell phone with a battery in it!

.... uh, wait what?

Clearly this Chinese gadget maker who has an Americas outpost in Ontario, Canada is counting on its target audience (Apple, Inc. (AAPL) iPhone 5/5S owners) to be gullible.  I take that back -- they're counting on them to be glaringly gullible. 

Their "XPowerSkin" appears -- in my professional opinion -- to be a handy backup battery and a passable bumper, but its maker is using lies to try to generate interest and push a cheap product to be sold at a higher unit fee.

bronchitis
Someone call Sweet Brown -- a Chinese company claims cell phones cause bronchitis.

I'm disappointed that the show organizer (the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)) would invite Santom if they were aware of its pitch.  But I'd imagine the weren't.

Let be clear.  It's utter fear-mongering malarkey to suggest that smartphone, tablets, or any other form of wireless devices cause this laundry list of cancers.  Even among wireless fearmongers, the kinds of claims Santom is making are extremely uncommon.

II. Electricity != Nuclear Decay

It appears the "engineers" over at Santom Ltd. must have slept through high school biology and physics, or they would have learned:

Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, can neither break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body.

Those aren't my words -- they're the words of the World Health Organization (WHO) -- one of the medical field's most reputable international authorities.  The WHO writes:

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.... research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.

...[R]esults of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults..... there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors... prevent a causal interpretation.

In other words scientists say there's no evidence that cell phones or Wi-Fi are causing brain cancer by beaming waves through your skull.

When most of us who passed high school science hear "radiation" in the context of disease, we think of ionizing radiation from radioactive isotopes.  Ionizing radiation of course can cause enormous damage including leukemia, lung damage (ephysema), skin cancer, etc.  Again that's ionizing radiation -- the kind you might encounter while playing with plutonium, drinking a nuka cola, or rushing out of your bunker to try to save a teenager during an atom bomb test.

But ionizing radiation by no means isthe same as nonionizing radiation, more commonly refered to as low-energy electromagnetic waves/signals.  Comparing low-energy electromagnetic waves to ionizing radiation (which includes both particle and high energy EM waves) is like saying the Earth is a star.  It's ignorant, it's wrong, it's just plain stupid.

Santom-dexim
Santom-dexim was advertising wireless speakers right next to pamphlets blaming cancer victims families for supposedly causing the disease with their cell phones.
[Image Source: jason Mick/DailyTech LLC]

Even Santom-dexim seems to realize this.  Not only did they use CES as a platform for this baseless fearmongering campaign, in an epically hypocritical twist -- ready your facepalm -- they were also promoting wireless Bluetooth-enabled stereo speakers right next to their fliers telling you that wireless signals cause cancer

III. Sometimes, Bad Science Can Get Personal

At the event where they were handing out these fliers I confronted dexim Santom's employees.  I informed them: "You do realize there's no scientific evidence that cell phones cause cancer?"

The dexim Santom representative responded, but refused to back down from his company's claims.  In broken English he argued that "everyone knows" cell phones are "bad for the health".

To his understanding the causative mechanism was chips inside the phone "getting hot".  He claimed the signals and heat triggered cancer and that the rubber case with its lithium ion battery somehow blocks those foul cancer rays.

Leukemia
I was fighting leukemia before I or anyone else in my family ever got a cell phone contract.
[Image Source: Mayo Clinic]

Normally I would laugh off such fantastically ridiculous claims.  But when you start to attack the victims you've sunk to a bizarre new low, and you should faces consequences.

Believe me, I'm not one to cry foul or preach political correctness very often.  I'm a staunch supporter of free speech.  And that's why on the off occasion where I see truly hateful, snake oil like this I arm myself against it with words as my weapon.

Am I taking all this a bit personally?  You bet I am.  I am a cancer survivor.  A little over ten years ago, after my freshman year of college I found myself unexpectedly in a war.  My body was destroying itself.  After being tested for everything from the flu to Lyme disease, I found myself diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML).

Sound medicine and good science saved my life from a terrible disease and I will never forget that.  Today my health has never been better.  Last year I ran my first marathon.

cancer patient
When you lie and blame patients' cancer on the victims and their families, you deserve to be condemned. [Image Source: CARE | Karen's Blog]

But as good as I have it, I will never be able to fully forget seeing many people who were not as young or lucky as I was.  Many of my hospital ward neighbors during those days of IVs and hospital gowns didn't make it to see "remission", much less a "cure."  My heart goes out to the surviving loved ones of those who died on those hospital beds.

As a scientist, as a reporter, and -- yes, as a cancer survivor, I find it disgusting to market such lies to the public to sell a product, exploiting cancer deaths to sell your cheap cell phone case.

IV. Blaming the Victims and Their Families -- Are you Kidding Me?

But where I think where Santom sinks to its ultimate, low, though, is when its marketers choose attack not only cancer victims (blaming them for causing their illness), but their family members as well, stating in broken English:

Cellphone Radiation was impacted (sic) your families health!

attacking cancer victims
[Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC]

No, you Santom nincompoops, it has not.

What is remarkable about this statement as it transforms one of the most wildly unfounded and sensational claims of cell phone illnesses (bronchitis -- really?) and takes it to a whole new realm of offensiveness.  Basically, dexim Santom is accusing the families of people who get leukemia, skin cancer, etc. of causing the cancer.

This is an amazingly offensive claim -- I've never heard of even those who fear cell phone towers restorting to such accusations of cancer victims' families.  It's an incredibly cold-hearted and poorly thought out claim, even on top of the fundamentally incompetent science that backs it.

While a small minority of cancers are due to occupation exposures (asbestos, benzene, etc.), anyone with a graduate level biochemistry, cellular biology, or cancer biology background will tell you that cancer does not occur overnight.  It is the culmination of dozens of mutations which took the diseased cells to their breaking point.

Mutations may be impacted by certain environmental factors (diet, etc.), but more than anything are a heavily stochastic (random) process.  My cancer, fell into this category.  As my doctor told me, it was basically a roll of the dice in terms of mutation events.  I had rotten luck.

My luck has since turned, but I can not help but be appalled at the decision of this company to accuse the families of unlucky cancer victims of causing their loved ones' disease.

Genetic roll of the dice
Many cancers are effectively an unlucky dice roll in terms of genetic predispositions and random mutations -- to blame the victims and their families is heartless.
[Image Source: UCLH.org]

Why not just sell your product as a backup battery?  Why lie to customers?   Why capitalize on human suffering to make a cheap buck??

Now I realize likely only a handful of employees at Santom and its dexim brand were involved in this ugly effort.  But that doesn't change the blame born by the company and whoever committed it to this reprehensible advertising pitch.

That move definitely earns dexim Santom my "worst in show" award.  Now, I don't usually give a "worst" award for anything, as there's a positive to even the most flawed products.  But I see no positive in spreading lies about cancer.  That kind of thing earns you a rare "worst" destinction.

Santor lies
[Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC]

It's a free market, but I recommed that readers refuse to do business with dexim Santom USA and its foreign parents.  I also suggest you boycott the "XPowerSkin" iPhone case that was promoted by these falsehoods.

I hope the CEA takes note Santom's statements, as well, and does not give them such a prominent showcase in the future to spread fear, uncertainty, and disinformation (FUD) discrediting an otherwise superb industry event.  Feel free to email either Santom or the CEA with your thoughts.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By Amiga500 on 1/15/2014 4:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, can neither break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body.


I thought an X-ray was a gamma ray...

and that only Alpha and Beta particles were ionizing...?




RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By Amiga500 on 1/15/2014 4:37:19 AM , Rating: 3
Google is my friend.

Alpha/Beta/Gamma all ionizing, but Gamma comparatively very weak [not zero as I had thought]. But due to its penetrating power, is the most dangerous in most scenarios.

X-rays and Gamma rays are separated only by wavelength. As are X-rays and radiofrequency waves. The shorter the wavelength = greater ability of photons to interact.


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By half_duplex on 1/15/2014 9:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
I like DT and I'm glad this article was written, but GOOD LOURDE have someone proof read this stuff and PLEASE cut down on the satirical images. I was to talk about this article but I cannot get past the fact that it's so poorly done.


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/15/2014 9:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
Go buy a newspaper then. Getting tired of people bashing the use of graphics on here. Stop being pussies and just deal. I would like to see you do any better!


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By BillyBatson on 1/15/14, Rating: -1
RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By hpglow on 1/15/2014 11:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
And yet I'm sure the site makes more money than you do.


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2014 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
So is Santom Dexim. And?


By BillyBatson on 1/15/2014 12:30:36 PM , Rating: 3
What point does that prove? I am also sure the NY Times makes more than dailytech, where articles are less bias and actually proof-read.


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/15/2014 11:35:08 AM , Rating: 1
Uhh in our public school system? This would be A++ college prep writing lol.

Also I'm not saying we can't offer criticism, I do it too. But you don't have to be a rude cunt about it. DT didn't ask you to visit here and read stuff for free.

So the article is "useless" because it informed you about something you previously weren't aware of? Uhhh that's not ironic, its retarded. That's the POINT of news blogs!


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By BillyBatson on 1/15/14, Rating: -1
RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By BillyBatson on 1/15/14, Rating: 0
By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2014 6:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
Is that some sort of self fulfilling prophecy? "If people think I'm an idiot, it must mean I am very smart!"


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By lexluthermiester on 1/15/2014 2:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you don't have to be a rude cunt about it.


Seriously with that? GROW UP! Get a clue, use your head for something more than a seat cushion, improve your vocabulary & the use thereof and last, but certainly not least, do quit displaying how much of a rebellious twinkie you are for all the world to see. Eh? It's getting really sad....


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/15/2014 5:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Vocabulary?

Half the people posting here don't use spell check, have the grammar of a 5'th grader, and can't even punctuate half the time.

My vocabulary is excellent. Wow, I used a curse word (that's not even considered that vulgar in most places), the horror.

It got my point across and I felt it was warranted. Just deal.

quote:
do quit displaying how much of a rebellious twinkie you are for all the world to see. Eh?


I have no clue what you mean by this.

Lately Jason has been taking a lot of flak by idiots with the attention span of a gnat. His offenses include long informative articles, and using lots of pictures. Personally I think he's writing the best stuff I've ever seen from him lately, and as a frequent patron here, I don't appreciate this kind of bullying and pedantic nitpicking.

And you question MY intelligence and maturity?


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By BillyBatson on 1/15/2014 5:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer; i am not going to argue your use of the word.... HOWEVER "not that vulgar" ? It is considered the MOST vulgar word of all the english curse words and it is throne word that can't be used even jokingly in front of most females without getting a palm flying at you. Go ahead and use the word, but know that it's the worst word lol


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By japlha on 1/16/2014 11:16:37 AM , Rating: 1
Don't believe everything the feminists tell you. Who made you the authority on what is the most offensive word? Don't be making assertions on my behalf or everyone else because I don't agree with you.
Reclaimer is allowed to use any words he wishes even if you think it's the MOST offensive word in the history the universe.
If you are that offended by a word then get off internet and go crawl under your bed.


By lexluthermiester on 1/16/2014 3:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
have the grammar of a 5'th grader


Glad you mentioned the fifth grade, because that is the level of maturity and civilized behavior you are displaying. Good job.

I'm well aware of your intelligence. Maturity is another thing. How about you kick the maturity up a few notches to match your intelligence.

quote:
My vocabulary is excellent. Wow, I used a curse word (that's not even considered that vulgar in most places), the horror.


Perhaps your known vocabulary is indeed expansive, yet that is not the issue. It is your choice of words that make you come off like the literal spoiled-brat fifth grader. Low, debase and pathetic.

quote:
It got my point across and I felt it was warranted. Just deal.


Did you? Didn't see that myself. All I saw was someone showing off how easily angered and provoked they are.

quote:
I have no clue what you mean by this.


And that's the point.

quote:
Lately Jason has been taking a lot of flak by idiots with the attention span of a gnat. His offenses include long informative articles, and using lots of pictures. Personally I think he's writing the best stuff I've ever seen from him lately, and as a frequent patron here, I don't appreciate this kind of bullying and pedantic nitpicking.


I'm not taking issue with Jason's articles. Most of them are lucid to the point of being nearly inspired. The issue hear is your very poor choice of words and the questionable need to even use them.

quote:
And you question MY intelligence and maturity?


Not your intelligence[although your choice words and intent does lend to questioning such], but rather your maturity, and rightly so...


RE: Erm, can someone clarify for me....
By mike66 on 1/15/2014 7:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop being pussies

quote:
be a rude cunt

Whats up, not getting enough are you? maybe it's showing in your style of writing. Women can tell when your a sexist pig you know by your language. If you speak and think like that then no self respecting women would want to be anywhere near you. Ask your mother.
quote:
retarded

Not a very nice term either. Maybe you should re-think your situation.


By MrBlastman on 1/17/2014 9:45:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whats up, not getting enough are you? maybe it's showing in your style of writing. Women can tell when your a sexist pig you know by your language. If you speak and think like that then no self respecting women would want to be anywhere near you. Ask your mother.


Here's some news for you: Women aren't the only thing to live for in life. Heck, they are probably one of the worst things a man can live for. There is so much more to this world than "poon."

Besides, they can be an ever-living pain in your backside.


By ShaolinSoccer on 1/15/2014 12:47:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
GOOD LOURDE have someone proof read this stuff and PLEASE cut down on the satirical images.


Ain't nobody got time fo that!


By Shadowself on 1/15/2014 8:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
X-ray's are generated from electron transitions in various shells of an atom, from Bremsstrahlung effects, synchrotron effects, etc. They're EM waves generated by EM effects.

Gamma rays are generated from electro-weak effects (some researchers extend this to include EM radiation generated from strong effects too), commonly thought of as nuclear effects (though you can get gammas from the decay of a stand alone particle that has nothing to do with any atomic nucleus). A nucleus or particle decays and a byproduct of that is often an EM wave called a gamma ray.

While most people think of gamma rays as being more energetic, higher frequency (and shorter wavelength) and more penetrating than X-rays, it is quite possible to have it be the opposite.

Depending upon the energy of each EM wave/photon, both X-rays and gamma rays can be ionizing.

Alpha and Beta particles are ionizing too depending upon their LET (linear energy transfer) function. In most cases Alpha and Betas are ionizing, but you can easily construct corner cases where they are not ionizing (and perform experiments to back this up).

Additionally, there are many other kinds of "particles" and "rays" that are generated in the world that, under the right circumstances, are much worse than Alphas, Betas, Gammas, or X-rays. If you're curious check out Auger Electron emitters. I was a lead on a study we did over three decades ago that showed if you ingested (breathed in, ate contaminated materials, etc.) Auger Electron emitter material that it was THE WORST for cancer creation (i.e., it required the smallest amount of contaminant to generate the same number of cancers).


By aristocat on 1/16/2014 1:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing that distinguishes and X-ray from a gamma ray is the origin of the radiation. Gamma rays originate from the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus of an unstable (radioactive) atom decays and the daughter product is in an excited/energized state. The "extra" energy is shed from the newly created daughter nucleus as a gamma ray. Cobalt 60 is and example of gamma emission. 1.17 MeV and 1.33 MeV gamma rays are emitted from each disintegration.

X-rays originate form the electron cloud of the atom.

If you were to measure a 1 MeV gamma ray source and a 1 MeV X-ray source, they would appear to identical to you. Only the location of creation is different. The nucleus for gamma rays and the electron cloud region for X-rays. They are equally harmful.

X-rays/gamma rays are photons. They are massless, uncharged particles. Beta particle are simply electrons and positrons. Beta electrons (negatrons)have enough kinetic energy to knock other electrons out of the orbital shells. Positrons annihilate with electrons to emit 1.022 MeV X-rays. Alpha particles are simply a helium atom with no electrons, just the nucleus.

They are all ionizing.


Microwaves can cause damage
By Dave1231 on 1/15/2014 9:18:18 AM , Rating: 1
Microwaves can cause damage to humans and can be emitted from phones. This is because the wavelength of microwaves is similar to that of food particles and human cells and causes these to vibrate and so heat. Whether or not phones emitting microwaves causes cancer or health problems is open to question in my mind and there has not been conclusive evidence to say that they don't. (See National Cancer Institute, Cell phones and cancer risk, at cancer.gov)

From my reading, the editorial has assumed that the radiation mentioned in Santom's literature is ionising but has not considered microwaves. Santom has mention SAR which is the specific absorption rate of radio frequencies and not ionising radiation. This is very clear and whilst there is still doubt over microwaves, then Santom's claims should not be dismissed by the editorial. What is open to question is proper scrutiny of their product and their "scary" marketing literature but I understand the emotion linked to cancer and companies claiming protection from it.




RE: Microwaves can cause damage
By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2014 11:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
Microwaves are all around us at pretty much any given time.


RE: Microwaves can cause damage
By Samus on 1/15/2014 4:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. Just imagine how many cell phone conversations are going through your body right now.


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2014 6:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
I can track your calls with my flesh


non ionizing versus ionizing radiation
By Alistair on 1/15/2014 8:10:59 AM , Rating: 1
Great article Jason. I love the heavy doses of science that appear in some Dailytech articles.

I am only a student, definitely no expert, but as far as I understand, the belief that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer is not exactly true, and the reality is more nuanced.

This is my limited understanding:

For example, UV radiation at non-ionizing wavelengths can still cause DNA damage directly through the direct absorption of small amounts of UVB radiation (sunburn), or indirectly through the creation of free radicals (such as hydroxl(HO)???),which are chemically reactive in the body.

These non-thermal effects from some non-ionizing radiation are the basis for the argument that scientists and others have used to suggest the possibility that in some situations even microwave or radio frequency radiation may be harmful even at lower doses than previously realized. I've read scientific papers discussing this problem in the past, so it is a topic of debate in science even today. As far as I understand the WHO believes that this is only a problem for UV radiation and that the usual exposure of microwave/radio radiation from electronic devices has not been shown to cause any problems. (Industrial workers might want to avoid high doses however.)

It's IMPORTANT to note though that cell phones don't emit substantial UV rays, rather they emit more harmless radio and microwave radiation, so I'm definitely not defending the cellphone case-making company, but I'm trying to suggest why there is a veneer of respectability to those ideas, and also that the confusion between microwave and UV waves is the root of many people's unwarranted fear of radio radiation like WIFI.

Your article makes me want to call up an old chemistry professor.... Radio waves are not UV radiation!!! (-:

I totally agree that the company is abusing science to sell their product, so good luck! After several of my family members passed away from cancer I've seen A LOT of people try to take advantage of peoples' fears, so it does make my blood boil also...

If anyone has a better understanding of this feel free to correct me. Like I said, I'm just a student.




By lexluthermiester on 1/15/2014 2:58:24 PM , Rating: 3
Alistair, You must be a good student. You didn't miss on any one point and your conclusions are spot-on.

Jason's EDITORIAL seems to have been in jest. I'd be willing to bet he's sitting at his desk watching all of the reactions to this information and laughing his butt off at the doltish remarks and moronic theories being displayed... Right Jason?


....
By Murloc on 1/15/2014 4:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
it's known that talking on the cellphone for too long increases the temperature of your ear, but there's nothing a case can do about that and it doesn't cause cancer, walking under the sun probably heats you up more.

Also they talk about radiation but then talk about heat when asked about it?

Also if that thing blocked the waves, the phone would not work! Genius!




a few lessions on radiation
By slawless on 1/15/2014 8:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
alpha, beta gamma. Alpha and beta radiation are high energy particles. An alpha is a helium nucleus (2 protons and 2 neutrons) A beta particle is a high energy electron. Particle radiation tends to cause a lot more damage but does not penetrate far. Obviously this does not apply to cell phones at all.

Gamma, Xrays, radio waves are all electromagnetic (EM) waves. "gamma' is given to those that are emitted from a nuclear decay. but are no different than any other EM radiation. The difference between radio waves and Xrays is the energy they carry. Xrays have enough energy to completely remove an electron from the atom producing an ion. these are more chemically reactive and can break chemical bonds. this can be bad if it occurs in your DNA. Radio waves do not have enough energy to do this.

Lower energy EM (radio, microwaves, infra red) can cause heating. How much heating occurs in you head from a 0.6 watt (max) cell phone is debatable. Remember you brain is actively cooled by blood.

As far as CT scans. A CT scan will increase your chances of dying from cancer by 1 in 1000. to put that in perspective, you chance of dying from cancer is about 450 in 1000 anyhow.




Lego
By Gunbuster on 1/15/2014 9:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they were totally legit on licencing use of that minifig from Lego.




Generally a good bet
By Motoman on 1/15/2014 10:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly this Chinese gadget maker who has an Americas outpost in Ontario, Canada is counting on its target audience (Apple, Inc. (AAPL) iPhone 5/5S owners) to be gullible. I take that back -- they're counting on them to be glaringly gullible.


In other news, Long John Silvers is counting on fish to live in the water, and KFC fully expects chickens to be tasty when fried.




Cured
By A11 on 1/15/2014 10:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks to XPowerskin with SAR technology my entire familie no longer has the cancer they got from using their cellphones.

Thank you Santom Dexim.




Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
By SunLord on 1/15/2014 3:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
They're just targeting a very specific market namely all the nutters who suffer from the all but totaly debunked mental disorder called Electromagnetic hypersensitivity




Evidence for Concerns
By Mackull on 1/16/2014 1:34:06 PM , Rating: 2

The author wrote, "In other words scientists say there's no evidence that cell phones or Wi-Fi are causing brain cancer by beaming waves through your skull." Ignorance is no excuse! The author needs to read the Bioinitive Report: http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/




Not that important
By mike66 on 1/15/14, Rating: 0
Editing
By Flunk on 1/15/14, Rating: -1
RE: Editing
By Flunk on 1/15/14, Rating: -1
RE: Editing
By soydios on 1/15/2014 9:36:16 AM , Rating: 3
The title is clearly marked as "Editorial: ...". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/editorial


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki