Month: March 2013

Following a dubious new report on the health risks of wifi, Keith Kloor decries the media’s ongoing flirtation with the “technology-causes-sickness” trope, which often not only ignores or distorts science but can actually bring about a negative psychosomatic effect:

[R]esearchers used a BBC documentary on the alleged dangers and health effects of electromagnetic fields. Participants watching the documentary–who were led to believe they were being closely exposed to a WiFi signal (they weren’t)–exhibited symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields. (I’ve previously discussed this Nocebo effect with respect to Wind Turbine Syndrome.) Those most symptomatic were also found to have pre-existing anxieties and sensitivities that made them more susceptible.

Charles Q. Choi imagines a world where wireless flexible electronics could be applied like temporary tattoos and allow people to communicate without talking:

When people think about talking, their throat muscles move even if they do not speak, a phenomenon known as subvocalization. Electronic tattoos placed on the throat could therefore behave as subvocal microphones through which people could communicate silently and wirelessly. “We’ve demonstrated our sensors can pick up the electrical signals of muscle movements in the throat so that people can communicate just with thought,” [electrical engineer Todd Coleman] says.

Alan Boyle highlights other possibilities:

The tattoos could have more down-to-earth applications in the medical field: In the future, such sensors could be used to monitor a newborn’s brain for any signs of abnormality, or an older person’s brain for signs of cognitive impairment. “As we age, our ability to respond, or to modulate our attention to different new types of inputs, will start to slow down,” Coleman said in a video interview distributed by AAAS. “Imagine if we could … mount a sticker to the forehead that can provide quantitative outputs — measurements of that.”

(Image courtesy of UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering)

Ethicist William MacAskill encourages young people who want to make a difference to work on Wall Street instead of a non-profit. He calls the strategy “earning to give“, arguing that it’s “better to earn a lot of money and donate a good chunk of it to the most cost-effective charities”:

In general, the charitable sector is people-rich but money-poor. Adding another person to the labor pool just isn’t as valuable as providing more money so that more workers can be hired. You might feel less directly involved because you haven’t dedicated every hour of your day to charity, but you’ll have made a much bigger difference.

The monetary value of that difference:

Annual salaries in banking or investment start at $80,000 and grow to over $500,000 if you do well. A lifetime salary of over $10 million is typical. Careers in nonprofits start at about $40,000, and don’t typically exceed $100,000, even for executive directors. Over a lifetime, a typical salary is only about $2.5 million. By entering finance and donating 50% of your lifetime earnings, you could pay for two nonprofit workers in your place—while still living on double what you would have if you’d chosen that route.