Radiation Blocker: Fact or Fiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ƒ(x)
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radiation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the effectiveness of devices marketed to block radiation from cell phones. Participants express skepticism about these products, questioning whether they genuinely block harmful radiation or if they are simply scams. There is a consensus that if these devices were effective at blocking radiation, they would likely interfere with the phone's functionality. The conversation emphasizes the need for manufacturers to provide credible proof of their claims through testing by recognized laboratories. One participant highlights the importance of requiring evidence of efficacy rather than disproving the claims, suggesting that the burden of proof lies with the manufacturers. Overall, there is a strong inclination towards viewing these radiation-blocking devices as ineffective or dubious.
ƒ(x)
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
I've seen devices in stores that supposed to be put on cell phones to prevent "radiation" from harming you. Is there any truth to this claim or is it just a scam?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ƒ(x) said:
I've seen devices in stores that supposed to be put on cell phones to prevent "radiation" from harming you. Is there any truth to this claim or is it just a scam?
That they block radiation - possibly, but if they block enough the phone won't work, the off switch serves a similair function
Or they prevent radiation harming you - no
 
I wonder if they consider the radio waves emitting from the phone to be "radiation".
 
I don't know. I actually need something from an authoritative source disproving the claim though.
 
ƒ(x) said:
I don't know. I actually need something from an authoritative source disproving the claim though.

You have things a little backwards. You should require proof that they work, not proof that they don't work. If the manufacturer can't provide this information, then what does that tell you?

They should be able to provide proof of testing by a qualified and recognized lab.
 
I know. I was actually hoping that you guys could provide some reports or something to disprove the claim. I personally think that those devices are bs, but I'm trying to persuade someone else that they are.
 
Just ONCE, I wanted to see a post titled Status Update that was not a blatant, annoying spam post by a new member. So here it is. Today was a good day here in Northern Wisconsin. Fall colors are here, no mosquitos, no deer flies, and mild temperature, so my morning run was unusually nice. Only two meetings today, and both went well. The deer that was road killed just down the road two weeks ago is now fully decomposed, so no more smell. Somebody has a spike buck skull for their...
Thread 'RIP George F. Smoot III (1945-2025)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/george-smoot-iii https://apc.u-paris.fr/fr/memory-george-fitzgerald-smoot-iii https://elements.lbl.gov/news/honoring-the-legacy-of-george-smoot/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2006/smoot/facts/ https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200611/nobel.cfm https://inspirehep.net/authors/988263 Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps (Astrophysical Journal...
Back
Top