Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

School Uniform To Block Cell Phone Emissions

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the luddite-high dept.

Science 153

Foehg writes "ForeignPolicy.com reports, 'A Belarusian textile company has developed a special school uniform that protects kids from electromagnetic radiation emanating from their cellphones. The uniform features a dedicated pocket that can store the phone and make it safe for those who wear it.'" Now someone has to create an oven mitt that can protect you from the harmful radiation given off by your microwave oven.

cancel ×

153 comments

I think this could be potentially good. (5, Insightful)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#29093809)

If it also blocks transmission, then students can keep their cell phone on them without worrying about disrupting class or losing their phone.

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094131)

I'm pretty sure that's why they did it. The company probably said "we can disrupt all cell phones kept in this pocket" and they said "WE'LL TAKE 1000!" The whole radiation protection is just an excuse.

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095209)

I think he was just being a grammar Nazi regarding the use of the word emissions vs. transmissions.

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (2, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096187)

That would be semantics nazi you insensitive clod!

Your geek card please.

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (1)

drukawski (1083675) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096115)

RTFA!!

a Belarusian textile company has developed a special school uniform that protects kids from... electromagnetic radiation emanating from their cellphones!

-And translated from the original article in Russian-

Let us recall, WHO (World Health Organization) extended information about the unfavorable consequences of the action of the electromagnetic radiations of cell phone on the children and adolescents. Foreign, including Russian, studies prove, that the use by the rising generation of such apparatuses is dangerous for the health. Electromagnetic radiations most strongly act on the central nervous and immune systems of organism.

The uniforms even come with a free tinfoil lined hoodie [yahoo.com]

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094237)

If it blocks transmission, none of the students will use it for its intended purpose, because they want to text their friends in the middle of the day regardless of the rules. They'll just keep their cell phones in another pocket.

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095605)

If it interferes with the phone's signal, won't the phone will just up its transmission power and drain its battery faster, while possibly subjecting the kid to comparable levels of radio waves?

Re:I think this could be potentially good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095779)

Did we TELL you to actually bring in reasoned opinions on a decent application of at-first-glance absurd technology? DID WE TELL YOU TO THINK? No! Now get back to your chanting! idleispants... pleasestop... idleispants... pleasestop...

Bundle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29096149)

Wait, THERES MORE. If you buy the cellphone blocking uniforms we will through in:

1 free ionic bracelet with every purchase.
2 harmony chips
1 Philip Stein Teslar Watch "a watch powered by snake oil,"
3 MPion MP3 Players

Call within the next 20 minutes and receive a pair of Dowsing Rods at no extra cost.

*(http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/11/10-awesome-gadg/)

Re:Bundle (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096179)

If I don't get a http://www.alexchiu.com/ [alexchiu.com] I don't want it.

Great! (2, Insightful)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 4 years ago | (#29093825)

This is great news for all of those students going to schools that permit them to carry cell phones.

Wait, what?

Re:Great! (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29093945)

This is great news for all of those students going to schools that permit them to carry cell phones.

Wait, what?

My son's elementary school lets the teachers decide whether or not students may bring cell phones to class. So far, most of them do allow them.

Re:Great! (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094155)

Good news. While I think cells are a bit overused by kids today, if I was a parent I'd want my kids to keep a cell on them for emergencies. Make it a disciplinary issue for kids using them when they shouldn't, but don't ban them outright like many schools do.

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

KuNgFo0 (519426) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094197)

The helicopter moms would probably throw a fit if they couldn't check up on their precious snowflakes.

Re:Great! (-1, Offtopic)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094293)

At the risk of losing karma and being modded off topic, you forced the image of Homer Simpson doing his helicopter impersonation. However, this post is NOT about blocking calls, it is about protecting kids from electromagnetic radiation.

Re:Great! (5, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094353)

No it's not. It's never about protecting the children.

Re:Great! (0)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094423)

i wish i had mod points.

well put.

Re:Great! (1)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094487)

More of a marketing scam i'm guessing. Seriously, i thought people were over this. It won't be long before we have publicly available EMPs like the Matrix. Damn Sentinels.

Re:Great! (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096529)

More of a marketing scam i'm guessing.

No company does anything for any other reason than to make money. Nothing really wrong with that but when you start claiming 'it's for the children' people need to realize you're full of it. Honestly this is just a tin-foil hat for mommy and daddies little gift to humanity.

Fear based marketing is just plan wrong.

Re:Great! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094645)

The most effective way of reducing electromagnetic radiation from cellphones is to turn them off. The second most effective method is to install a femtocell in each classroom, allowing the cellphones to reduce the signal strength to almost nothing. A braindead method is to add lots of material which blocks cellphone transmissions, causing all cellphones to increase the output signal strength.

Re:Great! (2, Interesting)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094299)

Cell phones in elementary school? Seriously?

Re:Great! (2, Funny)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094439)

Don't act so surprised. I live in Cleveland, and some elementary schools have flippin day cares.... for the STUDENTS!

I don't know why that sounds so odd to you (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29096127)

I see nothing odd in that. I got my first Nokia cellphone when I was on 5th grade, I think. I'm not sure how long elementary school takes in USA but here in Finland it is 9 years and you finish it when you are 15 or 16 years old (assuming you don't have to redo any year or anything like that). Most Finns have already also given up land lines as everyone in the family has cellphone. (Official cell phone penetration rate is apparently at 128% as there are more phones than people. For comparison, the rate for USA is 86% linky [itu.int] )

So a lot of kids at elementary school have cellphones. At that point question is "Should they be allowed in school or not" and thus "Is there any benefit from that?". The answer is, yes there is. At least I remember numerous times that I didn't come home directly from school but instead went to a friend for a while. It was good for me to have my phone with me and I think that my mother was happy knowing that she could contact me if necessary. Of course I used the phone myself, too. Texted friends if they have gotten off the school yet, etc. etc... Once called an ambulance after school when I saw an accident. So the next question is "Is there any harm from allowing them in schools" and I don't believe there is. There was a rule "Don't let it ring during a lesson or a teacher will take it and your parents will have to come and ask it back.". Some teachers were very strict about that, others were not. But practically everyone had a phone and I don't think I heard a phone ring during a lesson more than ten times or so in total. It was never a problem of any sort, not for teachers and not for students.

A lot of posters have implied that not only would cell phones be allowed in schools but it would be a very odd idea to allow them. Is there any logical reasoning behind this?

Re:I don't know why that sounds so odd to you (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096611)

I see nothing odd in that. I got my first Nokia cellphone when I was on 5th grade, I think. I'm not sure how long elementary school takes in USA but here in Finland it is 9 years and you finish it when you are 15 or 16 years old (assuming you don't have to redo any year or anything like that)

To answer your question about the USA. The numbers should should be about right (perhaps off by 1 year). At least where I live there's a cut-off like "You must turn X yrs old between September and June" (or something to that effect).

Kindergarten = 5 yrs old
1st Grade = 6 yrs old
High School (9th-12th grade) = 15 - 18 yrs old

Some states (if not all) have Middle School (7th and 8th grade) where they try to ease you into a semi High School experience. Mainly, going from 1 teacher with a desk to multiple teachers/classrooms and the use of lockers.

All of that being said, Cellphones weren't that big yet while I was in High School. Sure students had them but I don't think it reached critical mass by us until my senior year or after I went to college.

That being said, back then teachers would confiscate cellphones and pagers if they even saw them (let alone heard them). They wanted all communication to/from parents to go through either the Principal's office, Nurse's office, or a payphone.

I think I got my first one towards the middle or end of High School, mostly because I had to work late and would either need a ride back from someone or if there was an emergency.

Re:I don't know why that sounds so odd to you (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096857)

So a lot of kids at elementary school have cellphones. At that point question is "Should they be allowed in school or not" and thus "Is there any benefit from that?". The answer is, yes there is.

Should they be allowed in schools is one question, should they be allowed in class is another. The answer to the first one is yes, because it's obviously beneficial for parents and children to be able to communicate. The answer to the latter is no, because in general they serve no educational purpose, and a child who needs to call their parent can either wait until after class or ask the teacher's permission.

I think a lot of people automatically think "in class" when they hear "in school".

It was never a problem of any sort, not for teachers and not for students.

Sadly it's quite a problem over here, largely because of the ongoing war between students and their parents trying to strip all authority from school staff, and school staff trying to acquire absolute power in blanket fashion so they can claim to be fair and always thinking of the children.

E.g. if a student has a phone in class, and won't stop using it and disrupting class, and won't voluntarily hand it over to the teacher, the teacher has very few options as to what to do that won't get them in deep shit with the parents. Ergo, they try to get a universal ban on having phones in school, or blocking the phones so they're useless, and thus never have to confront an individual student over it.

It's kinda messed up.

Works two ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29093859)

If if protects the kids from phone emissions, then it should block tower signals from getting to the phones.

Or you could... (1, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29093917)

Turn your phone off? Take the battery out?

Can a teacher not confiscate a cell phone anymore if he catches a student using it?

Re:Or you could... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094619)

How long since you been in a school? Policing such policies is a waste of time and effort. If kids really want to bring in cell phones, they will. Something built into uniforms would allow for policing that doesn't requires effort. Of course, this won't stop the cell phones in kid's backpack unless the backpack is part of the uniform.

Re:Or you could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095349)

Something built into uniforms would allow for policing that doesn't requires effort.

How does policing not require effort. How do you stop a student from taking the cell phone out of the special pocket and putting it somewhere else on their body? How do you stop a student from taking the cell phone out of the special pocket and using it?

Re:Or you could... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096447)

It's going to be just as much of an issue of policing the kids to keep their cell phones in their clothes as it is to keep them from using it.

The idea of "using the uniform to enforce the no-cell-phone policy" is ridiculous, and will be exploited at every turn. I mean if I kid pulls out his phone to READ a text message... Then its not going to be in his uniform!

And the article states

The uniform features a dedicated pocket that can store the phone and make it safe for those who wear it.

The phone is unsafe? Unsafe how? Protecting kids from radiation? Stopping it from ringing in class? Like I said. Turnz it off.

Re:Or you could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29096663)

I think the point of this is to stop radiation from cell phones, nothing to do with the school's cell phone policy or anything like that. Dont you know cell phone radiation can reduce your sperm count?

Re:Or you could... (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096691)

Dont you know cell phone radiation can reduce your sperm count?

No I didn't, but heat can. Could be why males have a scrotum and why sperm counts decline when there's too much heat. Then again, males produce sperm very fast, so long-term effects are more questionable.

Re:Or you could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095385)

How do you temporarily take the battery out of the child's iPhone?

I wonder how long before we implant cellphones, and have an external screw mount for an antenna?

Could be a new meaning for "getting screwed."

This could be marginally useful to prevent ringing (3, Interesting)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#29093937)

This is a pretty long string of "ifs", but it might be an idea for that Iowa schools that wants to use technical means to cut down on phone use during class.

  • if it blocks the radiation effectively enough to prevent reception sufficiently
  • if you require the kids to have their phone in it during class under normal circumstances
  • if you're willing to enforce the rule
  • if not all the kids are sufficiently sneaky to keep an unshielded phone from being found

... then this sort of Faraday enclosure, even if it's just a small separate bag and not part of the clothing, might fit the needs of schools that wish to prevent general disruption but still allow emergency use of the phones and to allow use of them between classes or at lunch.

Re:This could be marginally useful to prevent ring (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094065)

if you're willing to enforce the rule

Hey! This is America! We don't do things like that anymore!

Re:This could be marginally useful to prevent ring (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094481)

We could do things like enforcing the rules but most teachers or schools can't afford the lawyers to fend off the parents who just know that Johnny is a special little angel who'd never do anything wrong and that he's above average so he obviously shouldn't get any grade less than an A+.

Re:This could be marginally useful to prevent ring (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095085)

Unless it's zero tolerance for aspirin or metal spoons.

Re:This could be marginally useful to prevent ring (2, Interesting)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096823)

if it blocks the radiation effectively enough to prevent reception sufficiently

I would not wear even if it did do that.

Reason: when phone is about to lose (or loses) contact with BTS the phone will increase TX power in order to avoid that. This can easily make situation (radiation dose) even worse.

In former Soviet Republic... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094005)

Cell phone calls you!

Is it me (2, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094047)

Is it me, or is the scientific knowledge of these school officials even worse than the slashdot crowd?

Is it : (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094885)

should read "Is it I". Evidently, your knowledge of grammar is WORSE than school officials.

Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094091)

And what about pedophiles trying to kidnap students? Is there less worry for them, since they may not be able to place a call, if their clothes are partially blocking cell phone signals?

Re:Concern (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095865)

Easy. Remove clothes. Problem solved.

WTH? (4, Insightful)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094119)

If you don't want the students to make/receive calls or text msgs why let 'em have phones with them at all? Wouldn't it be cheaper just order them left in their lockers? Paying for uniforms to block them seems overly complicated and expensive for the very little good it does. This seems more like a scam on the part of a company that wants to feed at the trough of the education bureaucracy. Or so it seems to me.

Re:WTH? (1)

yttrstein (891553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094377)

"Emission", not "transmission". I read it that way first too, and I thought it was a much better idea than what the

Re:WTH? (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094627)

Well if the phones "emit" dangerous levels of radiation (something that should be easily measurable) then ban the phones outright. Dressing them up in school board approved radiation suits just seems silly. That's like dressing them up in fireproof suits so the students can play with flamethrowers safely. But honestly it sounds like a tempest in tea pot minor league scam kinda thing going on here.

Re:WTH? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094853)

That's like dressing them up in fireproof suits so the students can play with flamethrowers safely.

That would totally rock! I wish I were back in school and you were my principal.

Re:WTH? (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094411)

Because that still doesn't work. You do realize the kids would still put phones in their pockets, and only pull em out when they wanna send a message, or in their backpacks. For years now backpack makers have had those dangly pouches for cell phones (bad idea though cuz that says "Hey, there's a phone in here! Steal me!"). Even though software and movie piracy is illegal, people still do it. Even though automatic firearms are illegal for people without the proper permits, gang members still obtain and use them. Even though lying under oath in court is illegal, politicians still do it...

I guess this really would teach the kids something useful for the real world - "It's only wrong if you get caught."

What this really is though, is a publicity stunt - like that moron politician or whatever he was a few months back "Let's Kevlar/armor plate textbooks so students can use them if they get shot at!"

Re:WTH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095499)

It didn't say they didn't want the kids not to receive calls...just that they would be "protected" from the dangerous(sic) RF levels coming from a cellphone.

Quick, someone call Al Gore! (1)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094149)

I am so tired of everyone freaking the fuck out about Manbearpig. Break out the fucking tin foil helmets and duct tape the god damn windows. Can ANYONE cite a case where someone, ANYONE died because of cell phone radiation (cancer patients/ Pete & Pete-esque metal plate in head people don't count).

Re:Quick, someone call Al Gore! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095339)

Not yet. Give it another 20 years. They will be linked to melanoma or thyroid cancer, in all likelihood.

Re:Quick, someone call Al Gore! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096555)

What gives you any justification for "in all likelihood"?

How do you get from no evidence whatsoever and many massive studies to "20 years from now cancer, in all likelihood"?

I know people want there to be something wrong so their mental models can be justified, giving them a disasterbatory rush, but get real people.

Re:Quick, someone call Al Gore! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095793)

Well, back before US cell phones had their output power reduced from 6 watts to well 6/10th of a watt, I had a cousin who used one of those 6 watt phones a lot. (business use) It wasn't a surprise that he developed a tumor in his brain, near where the antenna was so frequently placed. He died. It's probably impossible to prove that the frequent heating of those brain cells was the only factor that caused the cancer. Although it has been demonstrated in lab rats that it was a common occurrence, it would probably be equally impossible to prove it wasn't the cause. (He had no history of brain cancer in either side of his family, and all his relatives far outlived him.)

But at today's levels, I don't think it's a big worry, especially if the kiddies are just carrying them in their pockets at school, not spending hours in school talking on them! I know RF can have more of an effect on young'ens, but I think this worry about an occasional ping to the phone system is just silly.

Okay, lets make this clear now. (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094201)

This protects students from radiation that cell phones emit, they do NOT block calls, text messages, etc. telling by the text of the article.

Re:Okay, lets make this clear now. (2, Funny)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095531)

This protects students from radiation that cell phones emit, they do NOT block calls, text messages, etc.

So it blocks the radiation, but it does not block the radiation?

Sounds like a great investment, IMO!

-Rick

Re:Okay, lets make this clear now. (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096209)

So it blocks the radiation, but it does not block the radiation?

Usually, the student will be located _inside_ their clothing while objects like cell towers will be located _outside_. If this is not the case then maybe your school board has bigger problems than they had originally expected.

Device To Block Idiotic Comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094243)

from moronic U.S. residents [youtube.com] : Sock in mouth.

"Give me back my capitalism". "Give me back my 'Merica".

Sorry dudes, your 'Merica fell off the map about 100 years ago.

Yours In Communism,
K. Trout

You know the really sad part? (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094285)

They're probably still better at math and science than American kids.

This is a ploy by the battery manufacturers (5, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094343)

A faraday cage in a pocket; to block cell phone signals from reaching the phone? The phones will just crank their output power to the max in a selfless attempt to communicate, and in turn the battery will probably be dead by lunchtime. It's almost as if cellphones need some sort of onboard switch that allows you to selectively decide when it's ON or OFF... No, that's probably too futuristic for most people to comprehend anyway.

Re:This is a ploy by the battery manufacturers (1)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094415)

It seems more like those lead aprons and things they put on you when getting an x-ray. Not a signal blocker, more of a bullet proof vest.

Re:This is a ploy by the battery manufacturers (1)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094907)

You don't see all the implications... School administrators would rejoice if the batteries went dead.

Re:This is a ploy by the battery manufacturers (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094987)

I've experienced this first hand. In university, many of the lecture halls were underground and surrounded by rebar enforced concrete. No signal in there. A couple classes in there a day, and your cell phone wouldn't last until the end of the day.

Re:This is a ploy by the battery manufacturers (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095195)

It's almost as if cellphones need some sort of onboard switch that allows you to selectively decide when it's ON or OFF... No, that's probably too futuristic for most people to comprehend anyway.

You would get years for that. Off switches will be illegal in the future, especially on your personal tracking devices.

Re:This is a ploy by the battery manufacturers (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095917)

The phones will just crank their output power to the max in a selfless attempt to communicate [...]

Hopeless attempt. Hopeless.

Well, okay, technically, I suppose they WOULD be doing it selflessly, as, lacking sentience or life, most philosophers would agree that they also lack any real traditional sense of "self" (obviously, for the sake of this argument, disregarding philosophies and religions imparting a sort of "spirit" to all things, living or not), but I still don't think that's the word you're looking for. Not until they make self-aware phones which can then disregard themselves for the betterment of others, and assuming that increasing transmission power to the sacrifice of its own battery is counted among "betterment".

Which I think Apple and Google are racing towards, actually.

hmmmm (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094347)

This could be an interesting angle... clothing designed to limit the "damage" from cell phone signals....

So you line the pockets with a metalic mesh.... and as an added benefit... those milimeter wave scanners at the airport should be blinded too.

I was wondering how to market metalic mesh lined pants :)

-Steve

misread (1)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094371)

Looks like the purpose isn't so much to block cell phones, but to stop the electromagnetic radiation.

While most studies show it to be harmless, some studies say that kids might be more susceptible to any damages it might cause.

Clothes are bad, m'kay. (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094383)

Look, why don't we just let people be to what they want to be exposed to. Why would we want clothes to emit something that counteracts something else. Keep clothes pure.

Honestly, why must we keep inventing ways of counteracting what we know exists rather than just fix what exists first?

I'm not trying to troll here, but it seems that we are all for self experimentation.

For example, We have knows cigarettes are a big cause for cancer since the mid 70's or 80's yet we (humans) keep smoking that crap.

We've known for well over a decade that cell phones emit some harmful radiation. We keep buying them, and we haven't demanded that the industry fix itself.

We keep letting ourselves get duped into thinking all is ok. We are as much to blame for what we consume as those that sell us those consumer products.

Re:Clothes are bad, m'kay. (1)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094625)

Look, why don't we just let people be to what they want to be exposed to.

Being generally libertarian in nature, I'd agree with this except that we're talking about school kids as young as elementary school age. So, for example, your cigarette example is great... I think people should be allowed to smoke if they want, but the smoking age is 18 in most states.

Kids are being brought up in a world where which cellphone they have and their availability to send and receive messages determines their self worth. It's sad, but it's how it is.

Now, these clothes are pretty stupid. The authors of the article are pretty stupid, too. But then, that's just IMHO.

Re:Clothes are bad, m'kay. (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095249)

True the Adults versus child differnces make complete sense in your response, but parents need to then make the decisions for their children. If they are concerned whether the science is true, ultimately it comes down to parents taking control of what their children are exposed to. And thus back to my initial arguement, if we let ourselves use stuff that may or may not be bad for us, we are in that essence self-experimenting.

Maybe my arguement would have been better addressed to the parents of this world, take control of what your children do, and if you allow them the unlimited freedoms, don't blame anyone else for these actions if the results are less than favorable. And if your children are sneaky and devious, make them responsible for their actions.

I'm not against self experimentation, really, it's that type of attitude that has allowed scientist to test and further discover stuff.

Guess this is really something for a good debate over a cup of coffee. Hee

Re:Clothes are bad, m'kay. (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094713)

First, the clothes don't appear to be "emitting" anything. I don't speak Russian, so I can't get the technical details, but it appears that they are using some form of micromesh that shields the user from some of the radiation from a cell phone. The clothing itself does not emit any radiation, it's a passive block.

As to fixing the radiation, I can't say as I disagree, though I've heard many different stories on the results of studies, but better safe than sorry, I suppose. Does lead to a slight problem. I'd admittedly be hard-pressed to think of another thing other than radio waves to, well, carry radio signals. And I have yet to see an alternative to radio for wireless communication. I mean, if we all suddenly converted to smoke signals we'd start dying off of Black Lung or something.

Having said all that, I don't honestly see why a child should need a powered-on cell phone in a classroom setting. If the child needs a cell for some reason, or their parents want them to carry one, fine. But the best way to protect someone from the radiation the phones emit is to turn the damned things off until they are needed. If the parents need to reach the children, the appropriate way is to (a) leave a voicemail ot text and the kid can check during lunch or break, or if it's urgent (b) contact the school who will send someone to the classroom to give the message to the kid.

Re:Clothes are bad, m'kay. (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095139)

Because there are no known mechanisms for non-ionizing radiation to cause harm (except thermal damage; cell phones aren't nearly powerful enough for that), the burden of proof is on those claiming that cell phones cause harm. These things have, in fact, been extensively studied [badscience.net] , and the majority of studies backup what we expect from a general understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum: cell phone signals don't cause harm. The few studies showing problems can be simply dismissed as outliers.

The best way to move forward is to toss the issue.

Overview site (1)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094455)

Powerwatch [powerwatch.org.uk] is a good overview site dealing with health issues surrounding microwave and lower frequency electro-magnetic radiation. It may surprise many of you, but there have been clear-cut studies showing DNA damage on acount of EM fields, even at low frequencies: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241963 [nih.gov]

I see a new X-man being born (1)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094523)

DNA damage? Isn't it time kids evolve anyways? How else is the human race gonna move forward?

Re:I see a new X-man being born (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095281)

Well, it would be kewl if my (hypothetical) kid could shoot solar-powered blasts out his butt (like Cyclops, but from the other end). But with my luck, s/he'd just end up with 7 fingers on each hand.

Re:I see a new X-man being born (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095435)

I wish I didn't spent my mod points already so I could mod GP up.

And wait, Cyclops is solar-powered?

Many people here are condemning cell phone use, but how many people here sit in front of CRTs, multiple cell phones, pagers, Blackberries, etc? I thought the main concern for damage was that they can get warm and are kept in pockets near the testes (for men), which can interfere with sperm production. If I was so concerned about microwave/radio radiation I'd wear a tinfoil hat and live in a metal box in a basement somewhere. Oh wait, this is Slashdot...

Re:Overview site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095725)

there have been clear-cut studies showing DNA damage on acount of EM fields, even at low frequencies: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241963 [nih.gov]

Except that the study that you link to is not about low frequency EM radiation, i.e. it has nothing to do with cell phones.

Even if the study were about low frequency EM radiation, which it is not, it would still be irrelevant, because it is not about cell phone frequency EM radiation. (For example, there is a helluvalot of difference between how humans are affected by visible light and by x-rays.)

Even if the study were about cell phone frequency EM radiation, which it is not, it is not about the sort of low level, point source of cell phone frequency EM radiation that cell phones are.

If the study were all of the above, then the question would arise whether its results could be generalized from rats to humans. The answer to which is maybe.

Re:Overview site (1)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095911)

Except that the study that you link to is not about low frequency EM radiation, i.e. it has nothing to do with cell phones.

You don't understand. The main argument against cell-phone-induced damage is that the microwave photon energy (which is proportional to the frequency) is insufficient to break chemical bonds. However, that argument goes out the window if even much lower frequency EM radiation is found to still be able cause DNA breakage.

Re:Overview site (1)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096297)

Right! Just yesterday I suffered from cellular damage because of radiation! Those damned gas ovens radiate enormous amounts of infrared. It's about time somebody acts and designs some mitts that block infrared, that stuff is just everywhere. And when they are on to that, could they please do something about DHMO [dhmo.org] usage too? My son spilled the stuff all over himself yesterday, and who knows what happens next?

Re:Overview site (1)

trampel (464001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096395)

The linked article talks about magnetic (not EM) fields at 60 Hz. Looks like it would relate more to the power grid than to cell phones, if at all.

Re:Overview site (2, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096675)

The linked article talks about magnetic (not EM) fields at 60 Hz. Looks like it would relate more to the power grid than to cell phones, if at all.

There is a relation. What the experiments at 60 Hz show is that EM fields with very low photon energies (the photon energy is proportional to the frequency) can still cause biochemically appreciable effects such as DNA breakage.

The main reason that microwave-frequency EM radiation (which cell phones emit) has been claimed to be safe, at least in the low-power non-heating range, is that microwave photon energy is still way too low to break chemical bonds. This claim has been refuted by the 60 Hz results since they show that DNA breakage is definitely possible in the low-photon-energy regime, presumably by an indirect mechanism.

Re:Overview site (1)

Cedric Tsui (890887) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096671)

Wow! That's an awesome PubMed article.

I always just assumed that non-ionizing meant no DNA damage. I never considered a catalyst system.

Hmm (1)

UbuntuniX (1126607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094549)

Wait, protect?

Cellphones are officially safe though (2, Insightful)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | more than 4 years ago | (#29094639)

But cellphones are perfectly safe according to official doctrine. What is the problem here? Why do we need protecting from something that is officially safe. If they are unsafe then they should be banned.

Re:Cellphones are officially safe though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095037)

Tylanol is safe too, until you fuck up your liver and die.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203577304574272292331942618.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/tylenol_liver_damage/article.htm
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20051201/tylenol-overdoses-liver-failure

etc. etc. etc. etc.

Re:Cellphones are officially safe though (1)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095041)

The full story might still be written on this one. According to CORPORATE studies (or studies funded by corporations) they are safe. Government studies are almost as questionable because the corporations and the government are so closely aligned. It's only when something catastrophic happens that the full truth comes out. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of the tinfoil hat crowd but one doesn't know the long term results until some time has past.

Two birds, one stone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094657)

Just ban mobile phones from school all together. That way, the kids would be protected from any possibly radiation risk, and there would also be one fewer distraction from their education.

Laugh if you want till you listen to Dr. Carlo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094843)

Dr. Carlo did the original studies on cell phone radiation for the cell phone industry.
They did not like what he found and tried to intimidate him and claim he was a nut job.
The information carrying freqs we are exposing our selves to are new to the human body and the effects are not good.
Listen and then laugh about the tin foil crowd.
Keep putting that microwave radiation source right next to your sensitive brain and see what happens...

http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/audio/dr-george-carlo.mp3
http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/audio/dr-george-carlo-dynamic-health-2008-04-23.mp3
http://tinyurl.com/ttotl
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=resources

A special price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29094971)

"Now someone has to create an oven mitt that can protect you from the harmful radiation given off by your microwave oven."

I've got an oven mitt I'll sell you for $19.95 that is guaranteed to protect you from a 100% of the radiation while the microwave door is open. ... It'll also protect against Snipe.

Its not clear that cell phones are safe. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095075)

The long time effects of cellphones hasnt been properly researched yet. The problem is nobody knows if its dangerous yet. In ten-twenty years time we will know for sure and some parents may want to be on the safe side.

Re:Its not clear that cell phones are safe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29096139)

Have I got some tinfoil hats to sell to you... Oh wait, they're already doing just that. Damnit, too late again.

Re:Its not clear that cell phones are safe. (1)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096321)

The long time effects of tinfoil hats hasnt been properly researched yet. The problem is nobody knows if its dangerous yet. In ten-twenty years time we will know for sure and some slashdotters may want to be on the safe side.

WOW (2, Insightful)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29095363)

This is just another pointless protect our Children BS, why not just suggest every parents should bubble wrap their children before they leave the house

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29096141)

asphyxiation by bubble wrap would be a good reason not to suggest that

Hey, now don't knock Gamma Rays ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29095389)

... cause you wouldn't like me when I get angry ...

Invent a new problem then make a profit (1)

chicago_scott (458445) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096027)

This is like giving kids paper that can't be written on because kids would use the paper to pass notes to each other.

Note passing, doodling, talking, sleeping, etc. are all just a much of a distraction as cell phones, but schools don't go out and buy expensive gadgets to stop these distractions... instead the teacher uses disciplinary action. Why can't the same be done for cell phones?

One answer is that disciplinary action doesn't generate a profit for the company making this piece of junk.

Re:Invent a new problem then make a profit (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096081)

Teachers are fairly limited in what they allowed to do, often fearing reprisals from helicopter parents who think their kids are perfect.

Re:Invent a new problem then make a profit (1)

chicago_scott (458445) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096283)

Now you're talking about the real problem that needs to be dealt with: The ability for teachers to enforce rules.

Blocking a cell phone will do nothing to address that problem. It may alleviate one distraction (until the students figure out how to defeat the technology... let's not even get started talking about a schools limited funds being spent on a technology war with students, the school will lose and end up broke at the same time), but there are fifty other distractions that still must be dealt with. And the only way to deal with most of those other fifty distractions is through disciplinary action, which just so happens would help control the cell phone problem as well.

Don't forget... (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096261)

Oh, and don't forget that, if you're one of those sticklers that doesn't want to immigrate, you should invest in one of those lead codpieces. You wouldn't want to devolve into a "special" now would you...

Paranoia (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29096683)

For those dismissing this as paranoia - which it may be, I don't know - it may help to understand that Belarus has suffered considerably from the Chernobyl fallout.

If I were them, I'd be paranoid, too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...