Annotated Biography Mediums and Technologies – Source 1

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7387859

Reference:

Mertz, L.M, 2016. Are Wearables Safe?: We Carry Our Smart Devices with Us Everywhere – Even to Bed – But Have We Been Sleeping with the Enemy, or are Cautionary Tales Overinflated?. 1st ed. -: IEEE Pulse, Vol.7(1), pp.39-43

This article explores the question of whether wearable smart devices can be considered safe, or if further research is needed to reach a consensus on the matter.

The first issue the article raises is that of the confusion created by the fact that most government regulation surrounding wearable devices is based on outdated policy. The article cites the opinion of Kenneth R. Foster, a professor of bio-engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, who believes that such policies hearken back to the times when bulky devices emitted legitimately dangerous amounts of energy. This confusion has led to instances such as the original Pebble smartwatch coming with a warning to keep the device 2.5 cm from the body – absurd when considering it is a watch. This confusion comes from the policies set out by the FCC (U.S Federal Communications Commission) that state that “For devices worn against the body, the FCC requires testing with a 1.5–2.5-cm separation distance from the body, simulating the position of the device in a holster.”

The article also highlights the issue of how the accuracy of such devices in gathering health data could mislead the consumer. Lucy Dunne, director of the Wearable Technology Lab at the University of Minnesota voices her concern that consumers only see an attractive “shiny” interface on a smartwatch or fitness tracker and assume that the information is accurate- when there is almost no regulation to say that it is in fact true information.

Gert Cauwenberghs, a professor of bioengineering at the University of San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering, codirector of the university’s Institute for Neural Computation, and co-founder and chair of the scientific advisory board for San Diego-based Cognionics, Inc.  says “There are studies that have clearly shown other effects of EM fields (EMFs) on body activity,” “And if you think about it, this makes perfect sense because radiation doesn’t just get absorbed as heat. Absorption can also have a clear effect on transitions between energy states of molecules, such as proteins and DNA, and those transitions could have some life-impacting effects.” Such transitions can occur even at very low intensities, he asserts, so wearable technologies should be under scrutiny.

The article provides a useful set of opinions from leading academics on the matter of wearable device safety. The article showed credibility through its use of direct quotations and its frequent references to previous studies.  While a few key points on wearables were made, the issue of user privacy was not touched upon; an omission that will need to be made up for with further research on our part. Furthermore, the article presented no statistical analysis of its own from which our research could draw upon.

The article presents a dialogue between experts in the field of wearable technology – experts that do not agree. Thus, the findings of this article are of great use to us, as we hope, through our media essays to present an equally balanced argument, letting the viewer/listener decide for themselves. The arguments that the article records will also be of great use in forming the content of our essays. Finally, the references the article makes to other academic persons and work around the topic of wearable devices can now be used in our research to find further information.