Whatever happened to false advertising??? Seems like anything goes these days
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Googling PatchD finds some stuff you can read (from memory – looked this > up for a friend several months ago). > > > > That all said, if there was some way of magically reducing harmful > emissions by 75%+ for the cost of some cheap raw materials, every phone > manufacturer would have already done it. It’d cost them a few cents to > implement, and they could market their phones as having 75% fewer harmful > emissions. > > > > Basically, these things are a scam. > > > > *From:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> [mailto: > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On > Behalf Of *Bec C > *Sent:* Friday, 19 February 2016 6:42 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer > > > > Where would I even look for the current scientific data? > > > > Cheers > > On Friday, 19 February 2016, Greg Keogh <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Has any body any information about how well the Patchd radiation reducing > thing works? I can't seem to find much info besides the main site > patchd.com > > > > It's an old scam that feeds off fear. > > > > *The Federal Government’s safety watchdog, the Australian Radiation > Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), does not recommend the use > of products that attach to a phone and advertised as neutralising any > harmful effects. “The claims are not consistent with current scientific > knowledge and it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify any benefits,” > it says in a fact sheet.* > > > > Greg > > -- Thanks Tom
