In addition to magnetic bracelets and shoe inserts to aid in healing and electrocution belts for weight loss, consumers looking to waste money on products with dubious medical claims can now blow their earnings on a watch that claims to protect your body from “electronic pollution” in the form of magnetic fields.
Wired News: A Watch Powered by Snake Oil
The Philip Stein Teslar watch contains a chip that works with the battery and coil to create a frequency that neutralizes the electromagnetic fields emanating from devices like cell phones, computers and radios, according to the company.
Research links electromagnetic fields with several health problems like headache, fatigue and memory loss, the company said. Those who wear the quartz watch allegedly sleep better, experience less stress and have improved concentration and more energy, it claims.
“It shields the body from these electromagnetic fields, and then the body can be more effective in taking care of itself and its immune system with those unwanted fields thrown off,” explained Ilonka Harezi, head of research for Teslar Inside, which manufactures the watch. “With us sticking cell phones to our heads, we need that protection,” Harezi said.
But others say the company’s claims are a bunch of bunk.
“There is not a chance in the world that (these types of devices) will do anything but lighten your wallet,” said John Moulder, a professor of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who said he’s seen a slew of products that claim to do the same thing, including radio-frequency-proof lingerie.
Despite there being absolutely no scientific evidence that magnetic fields have any discernible effect on the body, and that’s something that has been studied extensively, the watches are being sold at such upscale stores as Bloomingdale’s New York and Royal Jewelers in Massachusetts for prices starting at $600 and going up to $2000 for one covered in diamonds. Needless to say, the watches are a hit among various celebrities and athletes and the clueless in general.
That’s it. I’m tired of being the only one who’s not making tons of money off of peoples’ stupidity and gullibility. I’m going to develop my own highly over-priced craptastic product with dubious medical claims that you don’t really need and start selling it to clueless idiots so I can be rich too. Perhaps it’s time I follow through on developing a patented Anti-Alien Anal Probe Ass Shield for people suffering from occasional alien anal probe syndrome. There certainly seems be enough of those people around judging from all the news items I read about it.
Link via Boing Boing.
About the Author: Les
I'm the guy that runs this place.
You can contact me at: les@stupidevilbastard.com
Which companies are you talking about specifically that are supposed to be in cahoots with which politicians, specifically? I’m asking because it’s unusually clear in following the political money and influence from Big Oil and existing energy outlets, but off the top of my head I can’t think of any “green” company that could even imagine affording laying out the plates for the same table.
Again though, why is it a problem if the government shoves green down our throats if it’s the right thing to do? Is the EPA bad? Is it better in the Ed world view for people to pollute without oversight, to pour their toxic household chemicals into the backyard lawn where it meanders into the ground water? If a company is using a toxic solution for an industrial process is it wrong for the government to step in and go “we’ve got a non or even less toxic alternative, and you’re going to use it or we’re not going to let you do anything?”
I think I’m understanding what you claim to be upset in principle over, but in practice what exactly do you think the government is “shoving down your throat” that’s absurd? Because in practice I’m seeing protected floodplains, safer working conditions, cleaner air, alternative power sources, and, best of all, people employed in the US to come up with these solutions. Exactly where do you think your rights are being abridged in practice in a way that’s not consistent with best or better practices?
“which has to subsist on government subsidies just to survive”
I am forced to assume that was sarcasm, especially since 2008 proved “big oil” can charge anything they want for no apparent reason and get away with it. I wonder how much money Al Gore stands to gain from the mindless* anti-Co2 crusade? Or even how much it’s earned him so far? He’s really taking the WORLD “to the cleaners” on this one.
*(mindless unless you run a company pushing this agenda)
So basically your opposition to helping the environment is so you don’t enrich Al Gore, who somehow has made up the idea of helping the environment as some way to make a living?
You’re probably lucky he didn’t decide to sell groceries then, right? You’d sit at home starving yourself just to spite him?
Ed said:
MisterMook already answered this well. I’ll just add that in a world filled with concerned, educated people, the FREE MARKET might be sufficient to regulate industry. To some extent this does happen: consumer pressure can force companies to change their practices. But as MisterMook points out, the FREE MARKET has been singularly poor at preventing all kinds of abuse, including pollution. Until such a time (if it ever comes- I’m not holding my breath) that we have a populace that behaves nicely and intelligently enough, we must have government oversight for some things.
Unfortunately, governments, both capitalistic and socialistic (and everything else) have not been doing their job very well either. And it doesn’t help that there’s a lot of money to be lost by very rich corporations, if we start taking the environment seriously.
How can you admit that big oil can charge anything they want and get away with it, and turn around and lambaste Al Gore for profiteering again? Claiming that global warming is a lie made up to enrich the greens is not likely to impress anyone here. Follow the buck.
“Claiming that global warming is a lie made up to enrich the greens”
I never said global warming was a lie. I did, however, say that there has been NO increase in global average temperatures in about 10 years(If you disagree, I welcome you to prove me wrong with evidence, and I do not consider Wikipedia to be evidence).
Instead of imposing BS solutions on people how about the government ensures people have effective recourse through the court system against those who pollute their environment. And no, Co2 is not a pollutant.
——————————————————————
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Ed, anything is a pollutant in a large enough amount. Most people like water, but they don’t swimming in it in their attics. Oxygen is great stuff, until it catches fire and blows you to hell and back.
You’re being arbitrary and disingenuous again. Stop it.
“anything is a pollutant in a large enough amount”
Well, considering that the most reliable evidence indicates that you would have to increase the current concentration of Co2 in the Earth’s atmosphere about 2 to 5 times before there MAY be a possibility we should be concerned about a negative impact on the Earth’s climate, I would have to say that your statement has no relevance in this matter. Approximately 450 million years ago Co2 levels were an estimated TEN TIMES higher than they are today and the earth was at the extreme coldest period in the last half-billion years. Do a little research. It’s counter productive to be “spoon-fed” so-called facts.
Ed, you’re not making sense again. You really want to base your opinion on climate change on the atmospheric composition right around the time the first creatures were moving onto land? Ed, this is before the gasoline you use to burn puppies with was anything more than pond scum and parasites. You’re aware, of course, that the mid Ordovician period was marked by a sharp spike of cooling owed in large part to increased tectonic activity, right? Your CO2 levels suggestions are irrelevant when the formation of the Appalachians is spitting up dust and contaminants that block the sun.
-“the gasoline you use to burn puppies with was anything more than pond scum and parasites”
How certain are you about that “pond scum and parasites” theory of yours?
http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Thomas-Gold/dp/0387985468
-“the formation of the Appalachians is spitting up dust and contaminants that block the sun”
The Appalachians formed over an aestimated 50 million year period. Hardly a cataclysmic atmosphere altering event. But then there were also the widespread Volcanic eruptions, particularly the eruption which is believed by some to be responsible for both the bentonite beds found in the eastern United States and those found in Scandinavia. Perhaps this was the cause of the global cooling? It was, after all, an eruption which is estimated to have put out 488 times more ash than the eruption of Mt St. Helens. But wait. There’s a problem with this. The Co2 put into the atmospere by this and the other widespread volcanic eruptions of this time period, in combination with the extensive flooding of continents due to high sea levels*, combined with the lack of widespread vegetation on land supressing the weathering of silicate rocks(a major mechanism for removing Co2 form the atmosphere) have already been blamed for the unusually WARM temperatures of the Ordivacian Period, so how can it be blamed for the COLD period as well? YOU are not making sense.
Also, atmosperic Co2 levels were actually around 14-16 times higher in the Ordovician Period than they are today, not 10 times as I had previously stated.
*Note the interesting point shown here that high sea levels are considered to be a contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures, and not the other way around.
…Next.
Certain enough to note that Thomas Gold was a physicist, not a biologist or chemist.
CO2 emissions are not the end all be all of climate change, especially during times of sulfate emissions such as happens during periods of heightened volcanic activity. You want a smoking gun over a vague 100 million year period 400 million years ago?
You’re still not making any sense regarding climate change though:
Specifically Ed, if you acknowledge that climate change is occurring then what the fuck is your problem with people doing something to adjust to and limit it? Seriously, your one note makes no sense. If global warming is happening and we know that CO2 can have an effect on climate change then why are keeping up this boneheaded nonsense about people trying to limit them?
I mean, is your position “Al Gore likes it, so it must be shit!” Your science is pretty shaky, which you must know. Are you one of those guys that will shit all over the environment simply because the other guy wants to clean it up? That’s a pretty petty jackass position, Ed.
I have no problem with anyone doing anything they want, as long as they are not trying to force their views on others. Imposing regulations on people based on very weak “theory” conjured up from flawed computer models is unacceptable.
Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong.
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/exposing-the-global-warming-myth-co2-levels/
Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men.
-Mortimer Adler
Ed, I live in Calgary.
I know who Tim Ball is.
I laugh that you would use him and Friends of Science. This is big oil central. We’ll do anything to protect the profit and low unemployment.
Not saying greens are not just as guilty, and more notably alarmist, but if you take him seriously, you’re deluding yourself.
Interesting reads here, by the way.
“Ed, I live in Calgary.
I know who Tim Ball is.
I laugh that you would use him and Friends of Science. This is big oil central. We’ll do anything to protect the profit and low unemployment.
Not saying greens are not just as guilty, and more notably alarmist, but if you take him seriously, you’re deluding yourself.”
————-
It matters not the source of the truth if supported by evidence. And I never take evidence from a single source, unless the source has proven itself.
“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”
-Gloria Steinem
“Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.”
-Buddha
Ed, you wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.