|
The
cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0?
By Molly Wood, senior editor, CNET.com
http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-5741203-1.html?tag=nl.e501
Tuesday, March 8, 2005
So,
there's this incredibly popular product that has widespread consumer
use and a massive marketing presence. Nearly everyone uses it, and it has
very high social acceptance, even though some people find it annoying
when it's used in public. It's highly habit-forming; people who use the product on a regular
basis find it almost impossible to live without.
Unfortunately, studies start to appear showing that the product might be harmful to its users--even
cancer-causing. The product's manufacturers deny the presence of any danger
and even spend millions of dollars trying to discredit the research that
points to problems. Then, an insider emerges, seemingly
with proof that
the product could be dangerous. The industry agrees to publish
warning data
about the product, but continues to maintain that the product itself is
safe for use. Lawsuits against the product's manufacturers are filed, but all are
dismissed. Industry
analysts know that any case that does succeed could start a domino effect
of future lawsuits, which keeps the industry determined to maintain that
the product is harmless, despite increasing
evidence to the
contrary.
TalkBack
What
do you think? Is the cell phone radiation scare a conspiracy theory or
worth using a headset for?
Sound familiar?
Well, put down your lighter, I'm talking about cell phones. I've already
maintained that I don't like the cell phone industry's iron-clad control
over phone releases and pricing, its ever-lengthening contracts, and the
annoying habit it has of crippling Bluetooth phones so that I can't use
them the way I want to. But it takes only a few minutes of looking into the
cell phone radiation quagmire before I start to think, man, these guys have
Big Tobacco 2.0 written all over them. Actually, I'm not the first to think
of it, but a recent article in the
University of Washington alumni magazine indicates that the behaviors aren't going
away, even as the potentially damning research continues to mount.
OK, I know the obvious differences: I'm sure cell phone manufacturers are
not deliberately making their products more addictive, for
example--although they are, of course, always offering new and improved
services and ever-increasing buckets of minutes, which can't help but
encourage us to use our phones more and more frequently. But, just as Big
Tobacco did, the cell phone industry seems bound and determined to thwart
and deny any suggestion that its product might be dangerous.
A history of bad news
For example, in 1994, University of Washington bioengineering professors
Henry Lai and Narendra Singh found that the DNA in rats' brains was damaged
after two hours of exposure to levels of microwave radiation considered
safe by the government. When Lai and Singh published the research, a leaked
memo from Motorola's head of global strategy, Norm Sandler, talked about
ways to minimize damage by undermining their research, with Sandler
writing, "I think that we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai/Singh
issue." Ouch. Worse, research biologist Jerry Phillips, who was paid
by Motorola to conduct similar testing, says he was able to duplicate Lai
and Singh's findings, but was then asked not to publish the research and
was subsequently shunned by the company. Motorola says it told Phillips
that his findings needed clarification, and the industry still maintains
that Lai and Singh's results have never been duplicated and can't be
considered legitimate.
The biggest Russell Crowe-style insider in this case, though, is Dr. George
Carlo, who was hired by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet
Association to head up a $28 million research program into possible health
effects from cellular phones. Unfortunately, he now says his findings show
an increased rate of brain cancer deaths, development of tumors, and
genetic damage among heavy cell phone users. He wrote this letter
of concern to
the president of AT&T Corporation and later went public with his
findings after what he considered to be neglect by the industry. He's since
broken with the industry, become a vocal critic, and coauthored a book
called Cell Phones:
Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age--so you can tell he's on the "cell
phones could cause cancer" side of things.
Meanwhile, more studies keep coming, and they seem to be getting worse. A
study funded by the European Union reported last December that radio waves
from mobile phones do, definitively, damage DNA and other cells in the
body--and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells. Even
though mutated cells are considered a possible cause of cancer, the UK
National Radiological Protection Board said that since the study didn't
show that the damage definitely led to disease, consumers shouldn't worry
too much about the findings.
Uh, right. In the meantime, the report recommended that children use mobile
phones only in emergency situations. You know, just in case. How
reassuring.
The cell phone industry hasn't commissioned another large-scale study--at
least not publicly--since its fateful encounter with Dr. Carlo--and why
would they? They're in a catch-22. It's a multibillion dollar industry, and
they simply can't afford to find out, definitively, that cell phones are
dangerous. Worse, just like the tobacco companies, if they start issuing
warnings and precautionary tales now, it'll look like they knew all along
that the radio waves were dangerous, opening them up to major liability
claims. They've already dodged one big, big bullet--an $800 million lawsuit
against Motorola and cell phone carriers was thrown out in
2002, with the
judge ruling that there wasn't sufficient evidence for trial. Since then,
neurologist Dr. Christopher Newman, who filed the lawsuit, has died of
brain cancer.
Listen, I use a cell phone, and I'm not trying to scare the bejesus out of
everyone. But I do use a headset when I'm talking for any long
period of time, and I carry that sucker in my purse, not my pocket. (I know
you guys don't have that luxury, but reconsider the briefcase, OK?) And if
you're shopping for a new phone, you might want to check our cell phone radiation chart to see which ones carry a low
dose.
In a few more years, we'll either know for sure that cell phones can cause
cancer, or we'll know they can't. I just hope we don't find out the hard
way--through subpoenaed documents from cell phone makers and carriers
who've been trying to minimize their damages and maximize their profits for
more than a decade.
|
|
