I am also going out to buy a smart patch. I think smart patch is a very good tool for us to be less affected from EMFs. I seriously think that EMFs can affect our health severely and the smart patch can save us from all the EMFs nowadays. I always have my phone with me, so I think it will be very useful for me. However, I think I should consider other products because the smart patch only protects us from the EMFs from our cell phones.

Even though I choose dispute, it doesn't mean I'm totally going against the argument. It's no secret that the demand for electricity has increased, and we have been using more and more devices, compared to the 20th century. The idea of a "smart patch" looks like a hope for us to avoid issues caused by exposure to EMF, but how do we know that every device will harm us? There are various health concerns however to what extent will we be affected? Is it 3 devices, 4 devices, or 10, 20? We have no clue.

So I believe that we shouldn't be relying on this one particular product. Think about the times where actually we don't need to look at a phone but we did. Won't the smart patch increase the rate of using a device?

I will join Mr.Shabysheik to buy a smart patch. Smart patch attaches directly to your cell phone or other EMF. I can carry it with me wherever I go and protects me against the health hazards of electromagnetic radiation. This smart patch has 6 feet protective field, and radiates a transformative filed into the appliance's wiring.

Strong artificial EMFs can enter my body and interfere my body. It will affect my sleep cycles, stress levels, and also may decrease my immune system. Therefore, I need to purchase the smart patch.

YESSS I'm definitely going with you. I heard that it helps to neutralize radiation from wireless technologies, and wireless technologies are everywhere and I can carry smart patch everywhere! A smart patch will save my life:) WAIT FOR ME!!!!!!

I am with you on this one totally. According to its description it does not need to be replaced when attached, and has penetrating affect (so even if you attach it to the case of your phone, the field it produced still protects you).

Although its effects (for example countering the EMF) may sound too magical to a skeptical person like me, I would like to give it a try since there's no harm (in my knowledge at least), and that the quantum biology laboratory approved its effectiveness. Nevertheless 29 dollars is indeed not a cheap price for something like this (100+ rmb!). I would probably buy one just to test it out, after all, I can return the patch if I don't like it.

I will join in. Since I need it to protect myself from EMFs, which can be generated by different devices nowadays. Especially for now, most of people have different devices surround them, such as iPads, smartphones, laptops, etc. I need smart patch to help me stay healthy from those devices.

Certainly not! A grown man should be able to go shopping himself!

No he did not. He merely wrote an article on the dangers of cell phone usage

I think it is not that serious that he should be jailed. I think he had sufficient data and evidence to support his article. I somehow agree with him because EMFs do actually affect people's health and it is good for the world to receive more hypothesis or more scenarios so that we can prove it right our wrong later on. These should be investigated further and we should have a strong answer soon.

But if all EMF products are banned, our lives will be changed completely. Even Wi-Fi and computers emits EMFs, so we would not be able to communicate as efficient as before, and technology around the world will not advance and not develop over time

EMF producing products must be BANNED! EMFs pass through walls, and most routers are not turned off at night, so you are exposed 24/7. That's not only from yours but also your neighbor’s. All of them emit EMFs. And exposing to EMFs can lead to serious health problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unlikely. Depression is caused by low levels of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. You can't possibly be suggesting the idea that one of the fundamental forces of the universe alters the output of neurotransmitters in the brain!

Although EMF is harmful, all of our essential products such as smartphones produces it, so if we ban the products that produces EMF, our life quality will go down. I think it is your responsibillity to protect your granny, and since there is smart patch, you can absouletly protect your granny.

I agree that EMF is dangerous to people, however, nowadays most of people are surrounded by electric devices that generates EMFs. People have already adapted to the environment with devices, since it gives them a lot of convenience. If those devices have been banned, people may lost those convenience and the society may go backward, since those advanced technology have been banned. By the way, you just use an EMF producing product to send this argument...

Well...I mean, you can argue that because it is public space and the resources should be shared. For example, you have paid for a meal in a restaurant, but you won't stay in that restaurant for another 5 hours after your meal, right? I think we should be considerate and share resources appropriately in public. Coffee shops should set time limit on the Wi-Fi access, where a person can only use the Wi-Fi for 2 hours so that everyone can sit down and enjoy a coffee during the day!

I think it is fine as long as you just take one seat and not take up more space than you need. You have the right to be there because you just purchased an item there but just make sure that your presence doesn't affect others who want to use the public space as well. it is fine as long as you are well aware of what is happening around you and be flexible.

Starbuck is not a long-staying coffee shop. Their mission is "To inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup and one neighbourhood at a time". Their main service system is delivering coffee, it is not a place to enjoy free WiFi and stay as long as I want.

There are cafes where its main purpose is for people to stay in the cafe for long time and do their work. These cafes have higher prices compared to Starbucks, and they have an environment for people to stay comfortable for a long period.

I disagree. The reason why Starbucks provided its costumers with free wifi access is so that they could have a more enjoyable afternoon tea or morning coffee or some kind of snack with access to the internet. However people are using this advantage to their own benefit. Let me remind the coffee shop campers --- the coffee shop was NOT made for you to work. Ok you may work better with noises in the coffee shop, but that doesn't matter, coffee shops are made for people to drink, or eat, not work. If you really like working with coffee and having noises, download an app with the coffee shop noises, buy some food and bring it with you to your office/home. You do realise that when you camp in the coffee shop, there are people who needs a table to sit and eat. Using the excuse that "I work better in the coffee shop" or "I bought something, I have the right to sit here all day" is simply selfish.

Wi-fi and tables in Starbucks are set up to improve customer experiences. Yes, of course you have the right to stay because you have purchased the product, it would be Starbucks' fault if they do not provide this service.

Making customers more happy with their experience is the business's aim. On the other hand, making sure other customers can enjoy the same experience is your responsibility. If you have not interfered other people's experience, then great, you can stay as long as you desire, however if you are staying too long and it has made other people don't have a seat, then its your problem.

It is Google's responsibility to tell the customers that Google Street View will collect your personal data and give a choice to the customers to use Google Street View or not. It has been found out that Google Street View leaks Email and passwords. Email and passwords leakage is a big problem, as some people uses same Email and passwords for other websites, which will lead to serious problem.

"Google's new file-storage service is generating plenty of buzz from privacy advocates", this is a serious issue. People may store important data in the file-storage service, such as passport information, bank information. It is Google's responsibility to build up a security program that will protect from data leakage.

Although Google claim that they did nothing wrong, they stilled did something unethical in my opinion. The general public can't be blamed for leaving themselves vulnerable in open networks because most of them don't even know what an open network is, this means that they have no idea what can happen to their personal information when they use open networks. In my opinion, Google is to blame for this unethical action.

I agree. We use Google because it collects data from everywhere, because we can find anything from it. If one does not wish for something to be found, one should not pull it online.