Electromagnetic Interference

As electronics become faster and smaller, they become more prone to electromagnetic (EM) interference. At the same time, the proliferation of wireless connections, everything from mobile phones to 802.11/Wi-Fi networks, and other electronic devices is increasing the number potential interference sources. Though EM interference's potential for causing malfunctions and accidents is bad enough, it could be even more devastating if criminals, terrorists, or other malicious parties use it to deliberately disrupt or destroy electronic systems. In Japan in 1998, a group of criminals instructed a pachinko machine (a mixture between slot machine and pinball) to dispense cash using a high energy radio-frequency device, while in Russia a thief robbed a jewelry store by using a similar device to bypass the alarm. Such interference-generating gadgets can be built from off-the-shelf components like microwave tubes, banks of capacitors (for building up high voltages) and antennas (for directing and concentrating the transmitted energy). Depending on the power and patterns of the emissions, the damage can range from temporary hiccups to total circuit burnout. Militaries around the world have started to integrate the potential threat of EM interference into the design of new devices. A few simple design changes to protect from EM interference could include adding more space between etched lines on a circuit board and more insulation around wires and critical circuits -- this has the secondary benefit of reducing the device's own EM emissions. The design changes proposed here might slightly increase the overall size of the device, but smaller is not always better in electronics.

Electromagnetic Radiation Standards are Outdated

A recent article in the IEEE Spectrum outlines how out of date EM radiation standards truly are. The current ANSI/IEEE standards for EM radiation (e.g. from cell or cordless phones, microwave ovens, radars, MRI machines, or any modern device for that matter) are based on the assumption that if nonionizing radiation (i.e. as opposed to ionizing, "bad", radiation like x-rays) affects living cells and tissue, it must do so by heating the tissue in question. This assumption apparently is false; there is some evidence that there is some damaging effects from the scattering of the waves, not just the absorption of the waves. The second problem with current standards is that they are based on whole-body dose calculations. The reality of many devices, such as mobile phones, is that often only a small volume of tissue receives most of the dose. While a device may contribute acceptable levels of whole-body dose, locally the standard dose is often exceeded by several orders of magnitude.

Hmm... Perhaps it's time for new standards... It's just a thought, though.

Travelling Degrades your Static Memories

If an image is worth a thousand words, then certainly a degraded image loses some of its wordiness. An unfortunate side effect of intensified airport pre-boarding security checks since 2001.09.11 has been degraded photographs. Now that hand checking items has become a rarity, everything -- including precious moments captured on film -- must be sent through an x-ray scanner. Although photographic film is exposed with visible light photons, high energy x-ray photons can in most cases over-expose film, generating streaking artifacts, and cause a general increase in brightness and speckly noise in the resulting developed image.

So, what's a jet-setting photographer to do? Ideally, one should avoid airport security checkpoints altogether. Try travelling by car, bus, train, or boat whenever possible. If this is not feasible, and plane travel is inevitable, try to reduce the total number of x-ray checks your film passes through before it is developed: minimize the number of stopovers, try to insist on a manual check of film canisters, and purchase film at the destination. Kodak (see the Technical Information Bulletin on Baggage X-ray Scanning Effects on Film) claims that 5 x-ray security scans is the typical threshold 'dose' before significant image degradation occurs on low speed (up to 400) film; higher speed film is more sensitive to light, and thus more susceptible to x-ray damage. If image quality is paramount and money is no object, an elegant solution is to courier the film back home -- check with the courier company first in case they irradiate their packages!

Is all this too much of a hassle? I think so. Do you believe that impeccable fidelity of visual memories is a basic human right? I do.

I use a digital camera.