13

There are some products, stickers that you put onto your mobile phone for example, that claim the following

Boost your natural defenses in the presence of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from mobile phones and other electronic wireless products. The Q-Link mini is great for yourself, your partner and young children and it simply sticks on your mobile phone, iPhone, blue tooth headset, smartphone or other electronic appliances.

-- source

Improve this question
6
  • Posting a question that consists only of a link to a commercial homepage would generally be considered spamming. Please add some more context to your questions, don't just drop links. I have edited the question for now, I just picked a claim from the homepage at random, please try to improve the question further.
    – Mad Scientist ♦
    May 1, 2011 at 8:52
  • 5
    Replace "electromagnetic radiation" with "signal" and the answer is obvious. The radiation is the signal! You do want the phone to work, don't you? Gimmicks either won't work at all, or will reduce signal. Distance determines exposure. Lower exposure by increasing distance, using speaker phone mode.
    – Paul
    May 1, 2011 at 9:05
  • Wired had a look at the "Pong Case" for iPhones. Apparently it is FCC approved (signal strenght is not cut, but redirected away from the head).
    – Oliver_C
    May 1, 2011 at 9:53
  • @Paul, @Oliver_C: If you post answers rather than comments, they can be voted up, be accepted and gain you some reputation points.
    – Oddthinking ♦
    May 1, 2011 at 15:07
  • @Oliver_C: What happens when you've got the iPhone on the other side of your head from the tower? It's gotta communicate with the tower, I believe the wavelengths are such that direct transmission is pretty much what you get, and I never know what is the direction of the tower I'm communicating with.
    – David Thornley
    May 1, 2011 at 16:38

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
11

In 2002, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that at least two device manufacturers were making false claims:

FTC Charges Sellers of Cell Phone Radiation Protection Patches with Making False Claims The Federal Trade Commission has charged two companies that sold devices that purportedly protect users from electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellular telephones with making false and unsubstantiated claims. In separate court actions announced today, the FTC alleges that Stock Value 1, Inc. and Comstar Communications, Inc. (Comstar) falsely represented that their products block up to 97% or 99% of radiation and other electromagnetic energy emitted by cellular telephones, thereby reducing consumers' exposure to this radiation. According to the FTC, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate their claims.

They issued a Consumer Alert on the subject.

Improve this answer
9

The primary source for the debunking of the Q-Link products (which was the example cited in the question) seems to have been an investigation by Bad Science's Ben Goldacre.

He opened one up to reveal the electronics inside were non-functional (i.e. just zero-ohm resistor, not connected to anything).

Meanwhile, Respectful Insolence's Orac looked at the so-called scientific evidence behind the Q-Link, and showed it was lacking any substance.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .