This is a bit off-topic but actually there is a perfectly respectable mechanism by which the full moon might affect mental health. Too much light at night interferes with the sleep cycle. The effect would have been stronger in the past when streets were not lit at night. Today our sleep cycles are already so f***ed up that a full moon probably makes no difference.

PS. Now that I come to think of it, the bluish-white light of the moon is not unlike the bluish-white light from the screen of a smartphone or laptop, and they are famous for causing insomnia.

@ChuangTzu,

Interesting how about the only point you seem to have taken from my post above is legal drugs vs illegal drugs, again, interesting. Since that actually goes back to the point I was actually making; and once again, it's the activity they are "addicted to", not the "vehicle" that "delivers it". Very similar to the fact, most people don't care which operating system they're using, let alone how it actually works, as long as it lets them do what they want to do, period. Well the smartphone still has a microprocessor, still has memory (aka, RAM), etc, the same as PC's do, it's just a different hardware platform to the PC - ARM vs x86 for the most part to be more precise.

Tell me how someone who's "addicted" to gaming, who uses a PC as that "vehicle" cares about what hardware platform they happen to be using, let alone probably even knows how the x86 platform differs from the ARM platform ?

Again, by your definition, everyone who has a smartphone must be "addicted" to it. How come I'm not then ? It's almost like saying; "I read a bunch of articles on the internet, now I know the secrets to the universe!"

I'm honestly beginning to wonder how much you really understand about "addictions", let alone drug addictions...

Sorry hazel but even aside from actual long term studies, which of course only concerns the very recent past, that debunk the idea 1) that effects from the Moon are deeply tied in with Myth and Superstition, even to the point of being imagined an actual deity affecting the fate of all Humanity as utterly unfounded, as well as 2) More light at night disturbs sleep so when there was less light the effect was even greater conundrum just goes right back to "1". Even if there were some heretofore unmeasured component or even if it was as simple as night light disturbed sleep, the effect would be there to some degree all month only excepting New Moon so the entire concept of one special Day suddenly has some huge and different effect seems preposterous.

The Moon's gravity has *extreme* effects on life on all Earth and that is measurable and the data is consistent but nothing has ever been measured in Moon reflected light waves that even could cause "Lunacy".

It is somewhat OT but as it was an analogy for confirmation bias, the legacy of mythology, and the lack of evidence I appreciate your logical but speculative response though I am unmoved by anything remotely resembling evidence.

While this is by no means evidence on it's own being a fictional comedy film, but Dave Chapelle's Half Baked doesn't attempt offer evidence beyond asking a provocative and poignant question with an all too obvious answer regarding the difference between habit-forming and addictive in which Bob Saget "takes one for the team" saying at a 12 Step meeting when one character introduces himself as "Hello, I'm an addict and my drug of choice is weed" and Bob Saget whose character plays a hard drugs addict, jumps up and demands (paraphrased for politeness) "Addicted to pot? Really? How many times have you (performed fellatio) to score some pot?" It is in fact on a whole other level.

I actually have yet to hear a single person shamefully admit to the same or similar to score to cell phone minutes.

The increase can potentially be different on a case by case basis. One location could have a certain ambient radiation level, while a different local has a different level. Then too, has anyone come up with a "cancer causality" threshold? If a given individual, in a given situation, is very close to getting enough radiation to cause cancer, then that person may use a cell phone in a way that puts them over the threshold. Also, different people make use of cell phones differently. Some people might be in situations, such that, their use of a cell phone might put them over some threshold. Naturally I do have to wonder if some people that seem to use text messaging a great deal, do so, not because of an addiction like process, but instead to keep the source of the radiation further away.

enorbet regarding your reply to me: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6071338

There is plenty of evidence of the negative affect cell phones and RF radiation have on the body: physical and mental. There is even concern over cordless phones, actually was a concern before cell phones. Cell phones are more alarming because people tend to carry and use them in close proximity to their body, especially delicate tissue areas (brain, breast, groin etc...). This is a bit OT but if someone is going to use a smartphone then always have it on speakerphone, never up to your head and don't carry it against your body, try to have it at least 6 or more inches away, ideally arms length or more. Better yet, have it off with the battery out unless you need to make a call, take a picture etc...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-with-cancer/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifes...126-story.html


enorbet, research the affects music and sound have the brain and you will quickly realize how susceptible we are to these powerful forces. Its a sword that cuts both ways, beneficial or can be created to be detrimental. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0412181341.htm

You are close to the ignore list....

Again, I did not say everyone that has a smartphone is an addict. What I did say is that smartphones (especially their applications/software) are designed to be addictive. That is not controversial you even have ex. social media executives admitting this. Similar to how not everyone that walks into a casino will become addicted, however, everything from the ground up inside and outside is designed to be addictive. It is also well known that the risk of addiction increases with each visit/use etc... Again nothing ground shattering there, common sense actually. Put 1 bullet in a 6 chamber gun and play Russian roulette and sooner than later bang... It's how the game is setup, and the game is rigged against you. Your best defense is to not play the game in the first place, or stop playing as quickly as possible.

Regarding PC use, place timers on your desk or desktop and take a break every 30-60 minutes for 5 minutes. Go for a walk, stretch, exercise, etc... Only allow yourself a set time to be on the computer each day etc... When you are off the computer don't jump in front of another screen, example from PC to TV, or TV to tablet, PC to phone etc....



Neither the human brain, nor nervous system, is designed for constant stimulation, and that constant stimulation will destroy the person.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ves-ncna947566
https://abcnews.go.com/health/extrem...ry?id=14212015
https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world...ath/index.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...-after-6373887

Please read that entire Scientific American article again and realize just how limited it is. The only solid conclusion is that rats, and very specifically male rats, not female rats nor either gender of mice, sometimes develop a type of heart tumors humans almost never get (not one documented case) and a type of brain tumor that humans sometimes can develop under other circumstances. The circumstances under which all those rodents were tested was an exposure to levels consistent with cell phones continuously for 19 hours each day since their birth. This is FAR from anything remotely conclusive about common human use.

The Chicago Tribune article is even less conclusive or scientific.

I have worked in and around music, in fact very loud Rock 'n Roll, Blues and Jazz music most of my life as an onstage performer, as an FOH Soundman, and as part of that employment also in the design and construction of electronic amplification and effects. I am very aware of the potent effects of music, made even moreso by high SPLs. I am also aware of but never worked on Military sound weapons, so I think I'm quite cognizant of the various effects of audio frequencies. Just as I mentioned however we are sensitive to audio as it has long been a rather essential part or at least a major advantage in our survival. By contrast some forms of radiation, including most radio frequencies pass through us in massive quantities that have zero effect on us.

I take and feel extreme pleasure (and sometimes, but rarely, displeasure) in Music. It's fair to say it has become a compelling habit to me. It is not, however, an addiction. Though in my long life I have spent many thousands of dollars, possibly bordering near hundreds of thousands of dollars (I never really kept track over long periods but I owned more than one professional Public Address or Sound Reinforcement system for my bands and sound companies. I never bought anything to feed my Music habit in lieu of food, family and shelter, etc. It was a net profit financially.

The venues varied from dive bars to Civic Center size indoor and outdoor shows with as many as 6,000 in the audience. You can likely imagine Rock n Roll for those venue sizes especially through ~1968-~1998 were VERY loud. Other than some minor hearing damage in the lower midrange my hearing tests out extremely good. I can still hear out to 17K at bedroom SPL levels. That physical damage is the only lasting affect I have ever experienced. I've only experienced "ringing in the ears" a handful of times and the worst of those receded within a few hours.

It didn't alter my personality, my cognitive abilities, or my sanity. That said, I feel pretty confidant that being tied down and subjected to, say chalk and fingernail sounds squawking and screeching on a blackboard at 100+db continuously for many days would likely make me want to kill whoever it was who tied me up and so cruelly subjected me to such torture, but I seriously doubt such lethal intent would be extended in any general or random manner. Even that sort of extended effect from continued abuse I find silly to even contemplate. IIRC the residents in the Koresh Compound in Waco were subjected to very high volume sounds or rabbits being killed, crying babies and the like, certainly a tortuous experience, but I have no knowledge that any who survived the flames and bullets were more than extremely annoyed at the time by the designed to be tortuous audio.

Government and Military agencies have basically tried to weaponize anything they can possibly imagine, spending billions of dollars and employing top brains in each field, and both audio and radio frequency weapons are exceedingly impractical and generally ineffective, and AFAIK not one military organization on Earth equips their soldiers with such "weapons". Sorry Brother but I think you're seeing mountains where molehills maybe exist.

Well ChuangTzu, while I'm a tad baffled as to why you seem to have taken my comments so personally; I wasn't trying to imply anything about whatever experiences you may have had regarding addiction, and not saying you have or haven't either BTW. In any case, and while it's up to you who you do or don't put on ignore; all I can say is that for one, your bar must be a lot lower than mine regarding your ignore list, and for seconds; I'm not going to "shut up" when I honestly do disagree one can honestly be "addicted" to a smartphone, or a particular piece of software per se, nor am I disagreeing just for the sake of it. I was only trying to have a honest discussion with you, so sorry you feel that way.

Getting back to topic, and again, and let's take drugs that chemically alter your brain, legal or otherwise; someone who's and let's say, drug of choice is crack cocaine, has probably tried/done other drugs (legal or otherwise) before they go onto crack, the fact remains, and like any other drug, it's the "high" they get from it that's the object/goal of the exercise. In other words; they are smoking it to get high, and that is what they are chasing, so they are "addicted" to the altered reality the "high" provides. The same as someone who's "addicted" to gaming is chasing the "stimulation" they get from constant gaming, to escape what you and I might call "boring reality". So again, the hardware platform, and at least to a large extent, the particular game software is at least largely immaterial (if not totally immaterial).

Again, I'm not lying when I say I DO have many years in fact of experience of living with people with serious drug addictions, people that would sell their own mother just to get "their fix". While I've never been to prison myself, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if even some of them would be better places to live compared to some of the places I've lived at over the years. And I'm not just talking about one or even just two years either, I'm talking many years - although thankfully I'm not living in such places anymore, thankfully.

Again, sorry you've taken my comments so personally, but I would with all respect kindly suggest you re-read my comments, and hopefully you'll see that I was only trying to dispute the idea someone could be actually "addicted" per se to a physical object, if nothing else.

enorbet, "remember all mountains begin as small mounds of dirt/rock"--- Lao Tzu & Huang Di.

Would you live directly under or near high tension power lines, next to or near cell phone towers, electrical substations etc...?

Place your face or head against the microwave when in use? Hold your tablet or laptop against your head or body when in use?

Is it not prudent to reduce as much as possible exposure to that which is not necessary or is/could be "unhealthy"?

Ref: Exposure to electromagnetic fields from laptop use of "laptop" computers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22315933/

jsb, nothing was taken personally, but do try not to take comments out of context or to "put words" into a conversation that were not there.

I've never lived in close proximity to high tension lines but they come in an array of ranges of voltage. You know the huge ones that look like some kind of Optimus Prime that carry 200,000 volts for cross country transmission? I know a family that lives directly under one of those and when they moved there, the construction was only on option, she was 4 months pregnant, and to close the deal they offered the family not only ridiculous levels of insurance protection for free, so ridiculous and so compounded by every other family whose property they crossed making it obvious they REALLY didn't expect to ever lose and have to pay out, but it was part of why the land and home sold for so little and came with a sizable settlement fee from the power company, as well as powerful evidence and testimonials that made it seem worth the risk. That child is 31 now and is a healthy as a horse and so are the subsequent children as well as the parents.

I have put my face up to the front glass of a microwave oven while in use a few times and for a few minutes because I trust in the risk avoidance nature of UL listed items and some 40+ years of existence without problems. I do actually sometimes use my laptop on my lap... not often but not from fear of any health issues beyond carpal tunnel.

The NIH document you linked is hardly evidence let alone conclusive evidence since it only relates to someone else's guidelines that are unsubstantiated and extremely conservative, well here's an excerpt...

Many governmental guidelines such as this exist and they always err on the extreme side of caution where there has only been the most preliminary of studies. An example of this is governmental standards for audio SPLs which are measured in decibels which is a logarithmic scale so that the difference between normal conversation (whatever that is) at roughly 60db is half as loud as 69db which is half as loud as 78db, and so on but the claim is made that any level above 85db is potentially damaging to hearing. Numerous household items vastly exceed 85db. Babies crying can reach 120db-130db !!! and remember every 9 is a doubling in volume. Rock concerts are commonly 110-126db and Ive been in thousands of those for many hours at a time, yet I'm supposed to believe that 85db is damaging when such levels are often exceeded by electric shavers, blenders, vacuum cleaners, hair dryers, coffee grinders, garbage disposals, flush toilets, and half a dozen other common items and tools.

Far more importantly tests have been performed on humans where humans have been exposed to utterly massive levels of magnetism to little or no effect, which is why MRIs are vastly safer than XRays. It depends more on the kind of magnetic field since if the field rapidly switches polarity we get something like microwaves which can cook meat, living or deceased. Magnetic fields that are 100,000 times as powerful as the magnetic field of planet Earth have no effect on people. There are certain levels at certain oscillating frequencies that can induce electric currents in the brain to detrimental effect, but those are far outside both the power and frequency of cellphones, smart or otherwise.

Most cellphones transmit radio frequencies at just under 4 watts. Microwave ovens average around 1,000 watts, or 250 times as powerful. The FCC limits commercial radio stations to 50,000 watts in the US but some broadcast into the US from Mexico are 500,000 watts and one in Luxembourg is 25,000 and another in the Netherlands is 500,000. Seriously, 4 watts no matter how close to your face is insignificant by comparison to what is all around us.

Good to know, and thanks for clearing that up, and I think I can see where the misunderstanding has occurred now, or at least how it started...

I wasn't trying to do that in the first place.

I think what's gotten lost in translation here is that; I wasn't saying that you said "everyone is addicted to smartphones" or similar. The point I was making was that, by saying what you did actually say in previous posts; it implied that anyone who owns a smartphone must, or would be "addicted" to it. In other words; it's very tenuous link to be making between portability, convenience and addiction at best - at worse it's conflating/confusing three very different things. This is the point I was trying to make, so still a little miffed as to how you didn't pick up on that reading between the lines, rather than just reading the words used or similar.

In any case, I would have to agree with enorbet in that; the articles you cite as "evidence" are really not much, if anything more than a bunch of opinions and observations dressed up as "science" - in other words what we would call "pseudoscience". From mainstream media by people that have not actually done proper scientific based research that would enable one to come to a proper scientific conclusion. Or coming to a scientific conclusion using incomplete data, to honestly be able to make such conclusions - let alone proper scientific conclusions.

I was always given to understand that the reason you don't actually use a laptop computer on your lap is that the heat exhaust is on the underside of the case, and testicles are rather sensitive to high temperatures. In addition there's a small risk of the vents getting choked off by soft fabrics and the cpu overheating. It certainly has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

@ hazel - That's certainly true, all of it, and I even heard of people promoting Hot Tubs as a means of birth control but I stopped being concerned over sperm viability ages ago. Because I spent thousands of hours close to working audio amplifiers, many with Output Transformers, all with Power Transformers, I've never been concerned over magnetic or electromagnetic fields as any combination of power and frequency that can cause damage are uncommon in Nature and even in technology and those that are, are properly shielded. It may be worthy of note that governments, even high authoritarian ones, only enacted warning labels on such things as tobacco smoking, never banning sales or making them illegal. They are influenced by corporations, especially insurance companies, to mitigate just the legality of risk, not the risk itself, so they just "cover their testicles". - "When the popcorn is removed from the microwave oven the contents will be hot" They barely even bother to warn about electromagnetic fields. It just isn't a substantial enough risk to warrant much investment in mitigation or avoidance.