Rates of breast cancer and melanoma in humans are on the rise and appear to favor the left side of the body. A suspected cause is that the box springs in our beds act as antennas to focus the EM radiation from FM radio and broadcast television directly into the left sides of our bodies. No, really:
Electromagnetic waves resonate on a half-wavelength antenna to create a standing wave with a peak at the middle of the antenna and a node at each end, just as when a string stretched between two points is plucked at the center. In the U.S. bed frames and box springs are made of metal, and the length of a bed is exactly half the wavelength of FM and TV transmissions that have been broadcasting since the late 1940s.
Update: So, you know when you run across something about some current scientific theory or hypothesis on a blog or in a magazine or newspaper or even in a scientific journal, there’s a fair chance that whatever the article says is misleading, misstated, or even incorrect. That’s just how it is and if you didn’t know, now you do. Take this stuff with a grain of salt. It’s why I use phrases like “suspected cause” instead of something like “box springs and FM radio proven to cause cancer”.
I don’t post things like this because I think they’re right, I post them because I think they are interesting. The geometry of TV signals and box springs causing cancer on the left sides of people’s bodies in Western countries…that’s a clever bit of hypothesizing, right or wrong.
In this case, an organization I know nothing about (Vetenskap och Folkbildning from Sweden) says that Olle Johansson, one of the researchers who came up with the box spring hypothesis, is a quack. In fact, he was “Misleader of the year” in 2004. What does this mean in terms of his work on box springs and cancer? I have no idea. All I know is that on one side you’ve got Olle Johansson, Scientific American, and the peer-reviewed journal (Pathophysiology) in which Johansson’s hypothesis was published. And on the other side, there’s Vetenskap och Folkbildning, a number of commenters on the SciAm post, and a bunch of people in my inbox. Who’s right? Who knows. It’s a fine opportunity to remain skeptical. (thx, tom)