Could Wearable Computer Radiation Be Harmful?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
No, this is a complete fabrication, doctors and researchers were well aware that cigarettes were carcinogenic and caused other lung ailments. Isaac Adler proposed the link in 1912 to lung cancer. The first animal and human studies showing the links started in the 1930s and the connection was well established by the mid-1940s.
The reason why the advertisement advertised "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette" is because the general public was becoming aware of the problems with tobacco and the advertisers wanted to use the authority of doctors to create a sense of that their cigarettes were safe without talking about cancer and lung disease.
Whether we're talking about radiation caused by wireless communication (e.g. wifi at 2.4/5 GHz) or high-frequency oscillations in a microprocessor, it's pretty safe to say that all of the significant electromagnetic radiation coming off of a wearable computer is under 10 GHz.
Damage to proteins, DNA, etc. due to radiation is either caused by that radiation stripping electrons / breaking covalent bonds, or through heating.
The sort of electromagnetic radiation that strips electrons and breaks covalent bonds is called ionizing radiation; ionizing radiation only occurs above a certain frequency threshold (depending on the material being ionized). This fact is, in fact, the reason Einstein got his Nobel in physics. Anyway, its pretty safe to say that, say, red visible light (400 THz) does not ionize important human molecules. Ultraviolet is usually considered to be the low end of the ionizing radiation range.
Therefore, because 400 THz > 10 GHz, radiation coming from wearable computers could not possibly cause molecular damage to humans through ionization. The light coming from the screen is significantly more dangerous in this respect than anything coming from the other electronics.
How about heating? Consider that a typical wearable computing device only consumes a few watts. If this power were distributed diffusely, it is harmless, and if it were focused, it would cause obvious and painful burns, which we know doesn't happen.
Can we shy away from these advancements in the name of safety? No-that is not how progress is made. What the critical point is that we should be more careful in vetting how we as society do/deal with things without the influence of money or power. This maybe a far-fetched utopia delusion but the only thing that will keep us from wiping ourselves out as a species. The world is getting smaller and the actions of a few are affecting more and more everyday.
Heck, ask a AWS engineer to go pull a plug somewhere. Watch the tech world burn.
Any article that cites Joe Mercola approvingly should be dismissed as bogus and irrelevant by default (barrin. significant other redeeming characteristics).
There is no alternative medicine. Medicine is a science. What people call "alternative medicine" is something that is specifically not a science; it means that whatever is practiced or claimed, is not founded on evidence gathered using the scientific method.
"Alternative medicine" suggests there would be some other, alternative way to make science than systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses [0].
The minute something in "alternative medicine" can be substantiated with repeatable findings that stand the trial of other, competent people looking at what was done, it is just "medicine". Nothing alternative about that.
This does not mean that science wouldn't err. But please, speak of witch-doctors or dissidents or whatever, but not "alternative medicine".
A fairly typical definition of medicine (and the one Google shows if you ask it to define medicine) is "the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease (in technical use often taken to exclude surgery)." And the "practice" part is a lot older than the "science" part.
And, in any case, even excluding alternative medicine, the practice of modern Western medicine is (though this varies a lot from practitioner to practitioner) a lot more intuitive and less science-based than many people would like to think, and efforts by institutions with concerns about improving that are often controversial in the field.