Pharma firm admits it goofed on 鈥淓-Waves鈥� phone chip
SLEEVES rolled up, Feedback reaches into the piling system where we meticulously store the emails you send us 鈥� and we pull out a message from Stephen Freeman about the 鈥淓-Waves Phone Chip鈥�.
Readers with an advanced interest in pseudoscience will already be thinking of the claims that might be made for a 鈥渃hip鈥� that aims to suppress 鈥渄angerous radiation鈥� from cellphones. According to Stephen, 鈥渁 quantum physical information wave鈥� is said to be involved. But we can鈥檛 enlighten you in detail. Visiting we find instead a message that we translate as: 鈥淥mega Pharma has decided to suspend sale of the E-Waves Phone Chip鈥� After the launch鈥� a storm of protest broke out, casting doubt on the scientific proofs by doctors and professors that we gave.鈥� They even offer a refund. Respect!
Advertisement
Feedback looks forward to more reports of absurd products being repudiated. But not with too much hope, since so few of them come from companies with reputations to protect: Omega was in its announcement of the product鈥檚 launch as selling 鈥渘on-prescription products such as wart treatments, pregnancy tests and sun tan lotions to pharmacists鈥�. We鈥檇 very much like to see the correspondence between Omega and its supplier.
鈥淢icrosoft鈥檚 Internet Explorer refused to show Theo McCaie a web page, complaining that 鈥溾�榰ndefined鈥� is undefined鈥�: the meaning of which is now, er鈥︹��
It鈥檚 just like swallowing your mobile
STILL they come: a spam arrives addressed to letters@newscientist.com from , promoting the benefits of 鈥渢he safest, anti-radiation mobile phone hands-free available today!鈥� And why might this be needed? Because, apparently, 鈥�70-80 per cent of the energy emitted from the antenna of your cellphone is absorbed in your head鈥�.
Feedback cannot claim to be an antenna engineer, but we鈥檇 have thought that you鈥檇 have to half-swallow your phone to achieve that level of signal attenuation.
The offer is based, of course, on the supposition that 鈥渞ecent clinical and laboratory studies have shown that the EMF鈥檚 emitted from your cellphone can cause dangerous health conditions鈥�. Leaving aside the question 鈥渢he EMF鈥檚 what?鈥�, more startling is the claim that by buying this product 鈥� an old-fashioned stethoscope-style earpiece that they call the 鈥淩F3 AirTube Technology鈥� 鈥� you 鈥渕ay save your life and your loved ones鈥�.
Surely moving the phone away from your head puts it closer to your loved ones, and indeed to your precious gonads.
WHAT really puzzles Feedback is the quantity of chutzpah exhibited by those who, albeit perhaps thoughtlessly, send such pseudoscience-babble spam direct to New 杏吧原创. (The standard exemplar of 鈥渃hutzpah鈥� is the apocryphal son who, on being convicted for murdering his parents, pleads in mitigation that he is an orphan.)
Indeed, looking through our junk archive we find more spam from promoting the 鈥淒e-Tox Foot Spa鈥�. This looks suspiciously like the Aqua Detox device about which we were slightly sceptical (19 June 2004) and which was tested and debunked by a reader (10 July 2004, p 28). Except now it鈥檚 less than a quarter of the price, at $250, and says it鈥檚 鈥渁pproved as a medical device under the European Medical Device Directive 93/42EE鈥� ().
Is it a double-bluff, on the basis that no publicity is bad publicity and even a write-up as sceptical as the one you are now reading is better than none? Feedback hopes that pointing this out neutralises the publicity we give here, and calls the bluff called.
Wrong kind of carbon emissions
IN WHAT he describes as 鈥渁 romantic moment鈥�, Graham Nash recently bought a hand-held Dyson vacuum cleaner as a wedding anniversary present. He got his comeuppance when he read the box blurb 鈥� also available at 鈥� which proudly says of its 鈥渄igital motor鈥� that 鈥渘o carbon brushes means no carbon emissions鈥�.
That鈥檚 not, as Graham says, what we usually mean by carbon emissions these days. It is true that in some other motors 鈥渁s the carbon brushes wear down, they emit carbon particles鈥�, as the site says, but exactly how bad for the environment could this be? Feedback would have thought that, if anything, such vacuum-cleaner emissions would have a slight 鈥� probably very, very slight 鈥� cooling effect on the world鈥檚 climate.
The bigger effect will be sooting up houses. Does that suggest a threat from runaway vacuum cleaner use? Do we mind?
Iron that shrinks water molecules
FINALLY, Philips has made a radical breakthrough in designing a new super-duper steam iron 鈥� the GC4630 鈥� which produces 鈥�50 per cent smaller steam particles鈥�, according to . Steve Cassidy observes that since the particles of steam are molecules of H2O, this implies a noteworthy advance with implications far beyond the ironing board. Will some sort of fission be occurring inside this iron?