• 22 JUL 14
    • 0

    CIndy Sage on Google Glass

    A reporter for the LA Times chronicled her experience trying out Google Glass around San Francisco.
    It’s in the on-line version of the article under Pros and Cons. I posted a comment (see at bottom).

    Adverse effects of cell phones that caused heating were reported in a 1998 Norwegian study and were
    associated with headaches and fatigue.
    Hanson Mild, K, Oftedal, G, Sandstrom, M, Wilen, J, Tynes, T, Haugsdal, B, Hauger E. Comparison of symptoms experienced by users of analogue and digital mobile phones: a Swedish-Norwegian epidemiological study. Arbetslivsrapport 1998:23.

    Study of mobile phone users showed a statistically significant association between calling time/number of calls per day and the prevalence of warmth behind/around the ear, headaches, and fatigue.

    Tissue heating is a sign that a device is producing excessive levels of radiofrequency/microwave radiation and the battery-switching function is producing high ELF-EMF. She reported a hotspot at the temple, although the antenna is located behind the ear.

    The SAR testing for Google Glass says the testing is done at normal room temperature. If real-life use is in colder conditions, what happens to the SAR? If testing is done in colder conditions (reflecting a cold night touring San Francisco, is it possible that the SARs will be higher?).

    Cindy Sage

    http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-d-google-glass-20140720-story.html#page=1

    Here’s some of what wowed me or annoyed me in my two days with Google Glass:

    Pro: It gives you a sense of freedom, as though there’s no limit on what you can know or find out. You can Google (natch!) when you’re out walking. Need a number for a cab? Just Google it.
    Con: You can do the same with your smartphone. To make Google Glass work, you must have a Wi-Fi connection. I carried a Wi-Fi hotspot in my pocket (instead of converting my phone into one). It worked, except at Lands End where I lost the signal.
    Pro: Glass is designed to be used in short bursts. Like a smartphone, its power should last all day if it’s used correctly.
    Con: I was using it intensively. Glass is a bit of a power hog. By the end of 90 minutes in the Exploratorium, it was only 57% charged so I took a “juice break.” At my second stop, I had to plug into my reserve batteries (one for Glass and one for my hot spot).
    Pro: The frame on Glass is adjustable and so are the nosepads.
    Con: I was wearing glasses so I had to layer Glass on top of my glasses. Every time I adjusted either, the camera lens seemed to shift slightly on this 1 1/2-ounce device.
    Pro: Accessing information through the Field Trip app was like having a little tour guide on your face. You can hear it or read the info on the tiny Glass screen.
    Con: If you’re in bright sunlight, it’s hard to read or see what Field Trip is showing you. If it’s noisy, you won’t be able to hear what it’s telling you unless the earbud is in.
    Pro: You can easily make calls. No more walking around with a phone glued to your head or a Bluetooth device sprouting from your ear.
    Con: None. At first, I thought the call reception was bad. It wasn’t. What I thought was static on a call to my sister was the crowd roaring as she cheered on the Orioles at Baltimore’s Camden Yards stadium.
    Pro: Glass’ still camera and video camera free you to capture a split-second moment in a way that a handheld camera can’t (or, at least, can’t for me).
    Con: You must learn exactly where Glass’ camera lens is pointing. Framing a photo isn’t always easy.
    Pro: On a night bus tour of San Francisco, Glass was the only thing that was warm.
    Con: Under regular circumstances, Glass felt a little toasty on my right temple.

    Cindysage 7/19/2014 LA Times comment

    “Glass felt a little toasty on my right temple.” Well, that means the radiofrequency microwave radiation level is so high you are experiencing tissue heating (thermal effects that can lead to cancer) as well as non-thermal RF effects. Do that long enough and you risk a malignant brain tumor and neurological damage.

    “You can easily make calls. No more walking around with a phone glued to your head.” Well, you ARE walking around with the equivalent (or worse) of a cell phone glued to your head, and it is transmitting right into your brain. The risk for glioma is doubled with cell phone use at 1640 hours cumulative lifetime exposure. Google Glass may be worse, by the description you give (heating at the temple). In the short term impaired thinking and memory will happen very quickly. Better watch crossing the street.

    “I carried a Wi-Fi hotspot in my pocket (instead of converting my phone into one).” So, now you’ve added another significant source of radiofrquency/microwave radiation – which your reproductive organs won’t much like either.

    It is wrong to promote a new gadget that by your own description is likely to hurt people. Toasty at the temple means tissue heating. You don’t even acknowledge that the non-thermal effects of radiofrequency are already classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen, based on cell phone-brain tumor risk. The article should come with a WARNING in BIG PRINT that this device will probably damage your brain and body.

    Leave a reply →

Photostream