A few high-end cars already come with technology that will issue a warning—or even brake automatically—if the dashboard computer thinks a crash is imminent. Now, for those of us who can't afford this luxury extra, there's a smart-phone app that aims to do something similar.

iOnRoad for Android detect and tracks cars on the road ahead using a phone's camera and machine vision software. It also draws on a phone's GPS, accelerometer, and orientation sensors to calculate the distance to other cars, and the speed at which they are traveling.

Just place your device in a mount on the dashboard and start up the app. Then your phone will diligently watch the road ahead, and beep a warning if you get too close to the vehicle ahead, alerting you to hastily brake before any damage occurs.

iOnRoad is a clever idea, and it highlights just how powerful and capable smart phones have become. Just few years ago, such an app would struggle on the fastest smart phone.

In practice, however, I found it a bit distracting. During a drive to Cape Cod last week, with the phone mounted beneath the GPS, my windshield felt cluttered. I kept glancing at the phone whenever a car outline changed from green to yellow (depending on how close I was), in addition to checking the GPS. With continued use of the app my eyes would probably stop drifting over to check how far away each vehicle was. Thankfully, I didn't get into any near-collisions, and the road was pretty traffic-free.

The app can also work in background mode, so it'll only sound and show a warning if it detects an imminent collision. So iOnRoad could run behind a GPS app while driving.

The Israeli company behind the app, Picitup, has previously created vision recognition software for to automatically cataloging products (which eBay uses). At first, iOnRoad will be free; and it will be available next month.

The app is programmed to beep if the user is tailgating (at speeds over 10 mph) or if it detects the user is under .7 seconds from crashing (with an accuracy of .1 to .2 seconds). It also has night vision mode, though I wonder how well it could make out cars in foggy or snowy conditions.

"I think early warning systems are likely to take the same track [as GPS]," Alon Atsmon, CEO of Picitup. "It starts in high-end cars and moves into dedicated devices and smart phones."

He may be right, and overall I think this type of technology could help save lives. But I can't help wondering if the proliferation of collision-avoidance technology might also breed less careful drivers.

Images courtesy of Picitup

Cell phones are potentially carcinogenic according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of The World Health Organization. A panel of 31 scientists from across the globe did not conduct any new research before making the declaration, but assessed existing studies.

The IARC has now elevated cell phone use to its Group 2B list of carcinogens, which includes many different chemicals and products, such as DDT, engine exhaust, and coffee, pickled vegetables and talcum powder. This means it the IARC considers cell phones "possibly carcinogenic to humans." The panel evaluated a number of research studies, including the 2007 Interphone study, which indicated that the heaviest 10 percent of cell phone users had a 40 percent increased risk of developing a rare type of brain tumor called glioma. Because this cancer is so rare, the increase in risk is very slight.

Importantly, it remains unclear how the kind of non-ionizing radiation emitted by cell phones may lead to cancer.

As the Cancer Research UK blog points out:

So far no one has been able to provide a good biological mechanism for the link between mobile phones and cancer. The "how" question is an open one. The phones give off microwave radiation, but this has millions of times less energy than, say, an X-ray and is not powerful enough to damage our DNA. They mildly heat the body, but again, not enough to pose a health risk. Other suggestions have been put forward, but none are backed by consistent evidence.

According to some, the new IARC classification is no cause for alarm. Matthew Herper writes at Forbes.com:

If there is a reason to care about this data, it's this: if there is any risk of glioma, you could probably avoid it by using an earpiece or speaker phone for long cellphone conversations, and we could encourage cellphone manufacturers like Apple, Motorola, and Nokia to design their phones to help people do that. Glioma is a terrible cancer, and if we could reduce the number of cases through simple means it would be worth it.

But cellphones also improve our lives in numerous ways, and the evidence of risk just doesn't warrant much change. We could probably improve our health a lot more by avoiding charred meats, wearing sunscreen, eating vegetables, and helping people quit smoking. The cellphone cancer story just isn't that scary—it's barely even a pickle.

The Daily Telegraph's health correspondent Martin Beckford adds:

So how good is the evidence? To be blunt: not very. There have been a number of studies done into the link between mobile phones and cancer. Most of them show no increase in risk.

But many experts—including the director of the IARC—recommend taking sensible precautions like texting or using hands sets rather than holding the phone to your ear for too long. Others think there more dramatic action is in order, as the Washington Post reports:

[...] some experts said the conclusion should lead to immediate action, not only by consumers but also by the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission.

"This is the first formal acknowledgment that we may have a problem on our hands — and it could be a very big problem," said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a trade publication. "The IARC decision, surely, is a wake-up call that people, especially children, should take sensible precautions."

CNN Health points out problems with the Interphone study, suggesting that it may in fact have underreported the risk of developing cancer:

In general, the Interphone study has many flaws. Among them, participants self-reported how much they used their phones, and memory isn't always accurate. Also, Interphone does not include children and young adults, who could be at increased risk of brain disease from cell phone radiation. Interphone also fails to address cordless phone use. But the bottom line is that while it doesn't prove with absolute certainty that anything causes anything, it is still a reason to pause and think about your cell phone use.

While reactions to the new classification have run the gamut, David Ropeik, author of a book on the perception of fear, says public response is a typical one to fearful news on a guest blog at Scientific American:

We're more afraid of human-made risks (radiation from cell phones) than natural ones (radiation from the sun), and we're more afraid of things that cause high pain and suffering—like brain cancer—than risks which cause less painful outcomes.

Netra is an inexpensive and easy-to-attach add-on for self-testing eyesight quickly, easily, and accurately with a mobile phone. Credit: Andy Ryan, MIT Media Lab

It won't be long before most people are carrying high-end scientific equipment around in their pockets at all times, said Ramesh Raskar, an associate professor at the MIT Media Lab and the leader of the Camera Culture group there. That equipment comes in the form of smart phones, and Raskar believes this development "will change everything."

Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration for the Media Lab, Raskar outlined how he wants to take advantage of the increasingly sophisticated power of today's mobile devices. He said it dawned on him that the 300 dpi resolution on a smart phone screen made it the rival of expensive, specialized devices.

One of his group's first experiments is the prototype of Netra, a system that can identify problems with a person's eyesight using only a smartphone, software, and inexpensive optical add-ons. The system, Raskar said, could help people who can't afford or get access to full-service optometry.

Raskar said the ubiquity of smartphones is a key part of what makes Netra attractive. While other systems have been proposed to provide optometry where it isn't currently available, those systems were limited by needing expensive equipment, or by being complex enough that they had to be used by an expert.

Similar hardware add-ons could transform smart phones into inexpensive sensor devices that could serve many medical and environmental needs.