I'm inclined to think that it's highly likely from what I've read, plus for two additional reasons: one is concerned communications engineers talking off record to me about this problem back in the very early days of cell phone design (mid- and late 1990s). The second is the fact that the CTIA managed to get federal legislation passed to make it illegal to complain about/sue cell phone companies based on health reasons.
There's a lot of evidence of links between cell phone and other wireless radiation and cancer. There are also lots of studies that conclude the opposite. The subject is highly politicized, and there are way too many studies with radically different research designs to make them easy to compare, or to make this a quick, easy-to-grasp subject. The bottom line is we don't know but there's a possibility, and one that could affect millions of people.
Chuck, that's my understanding of the definitions, also. That's why I queried the use of the term "immersion." How complete the "immersion" is, and how long it takes place, are key. I agree, this coating appears to make the item water resistant.
I had to go to the Internet (uh-oh) to find out the difference between waterproof and water-resistant. The prevailing logic seems to be that a waterproof product prevents water from coming in at all, even when submerged (think of a diving watch). Water resistant (here's wher the definition seems to get fuzzy) describes the ability to repel water, up to a point. Given those descriptions, I would assume this material makes the phone water-resistant.
Jenn, that would be retrofitting, which we were discussing earlier in the comments. So far, we haven't seen any plans for that, but it sure sounds like a great idea. OTOH, as someone pointed out, those refrigerator-sized machines may be on the pricey side for an operation like Kinko's. And that's an entirely different business model from selling the coating to a company like Motorola. I was expressing more of a wish than a prediction.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.