Cancerphone
The first study linking cigarettes to cancer was published in 1939, but it took two decades of further medical research before the World Health Organization recognized this fact in 1960. And despite the unanimous consensus that cigarettes kill, Philip Morris – the world’s largest tobacco company – continued its campaign of denial until October, 1999, when it finally admitted on its website that cigarettes are deadly. It took 60 years for the cigarette/cancer connection to become an irrefutable fact. We are now beginning to repeat the same pattern, only this time with cell phones.
A recent article in GQ magazine , which should be required reading for all cell phone users, suggests that we are in the early stages of industry denial. A smattering of research indicates a connection between cell phones and cancer, but well-funded industry-backed studies refute this evidence. When I share this article with friends they often respond with a shrug of indifference, thereby indicating that cell phones have passed from luxury to necessity. Any risk of cancer has been relegated to the same category we accept when we drive a car or board a plane.
It’s disturbing that it’s easier for us to agree that the cell phone/cancer connection poses an acceptable risk than it is to imagine a world where cell phones have been banned. Perhaps this is because cell phones and smart phones are still considered cool – like cigarettes were in the 1950s. We envied the rebel’s pack of smokes just as we now lust after our neighbor’s iPhone.
It is time culture jammers launched a campaign to uncool the cancerphone. Only then will our society be able to have an honest discussion about the risks of wireless devices.
Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He is writing a book on the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org
46 comments on the article “Cancerphone”
Displaying 1 - 10 of 46
Page 1 of 5
berkeley
I think the comparison between cell phones and cigarettes is a compelling one. From where we are now, it's approaches insanity to imagine restaurants, airports, and offices banning indoor cell phone use; it's almost impossible to picture the last few cell-addicts hungrily texting, talking, and sucking down info-toxins in small radiation-proof chambers while the rest of us shake our heads and find meaningful, non-corporate, and non-cancerous ways to be cool. But 30 years ago, that was equally true of cancersticks.
Bonus: quitting cell phones also helps you slow down your life. Happy slow down week!
berkeley
I think the comparison between cell phones and cigarettes is a compelling one. From where we are now, it's approaches insanity to imagine restaurants, airports, and offices banning indoor cell phone use; it's almost impossible to picture the last few cell-addicts hungrily texting, talking, and sucking down info-toxins in small radiation-proof chambers while the rest of us shake our heads and find meaningful, non-corporate, and non-cancerous ways to be cool. But 30 years ago, that was equally true of cancersticks.
Bonus: quitting cell phones also helps you slow down your life. Happy slow down week!
Anonymous
If there's something in particular that you think is wrong with the research indicating that mobile telephones do not pose a cancer risk, could you share with us what that is?
Its having been funded by the industry is not a valid criticism of the research.
Anonymous
If there's something in particular that you think is wrong with the research indicating that mobile telephones do not pose a cancer risk, could you share with us what that is?
Its having been funded by the industry is not a valid criticism of the research.
Anonymous
Whilst the fact industry funded research is not de facto invalid, you can't ignore the fact the industry would suffer for the revelation that mobile technology is a genuine cancer risk. Research needs to be performed by neutral parties, not the industry. Do you really trust a multi-national industry to be utterly honest?
Anonymous
Whilst the fact industry funded research is not de facto invalid, you can't ignore the fact the industry would suffer for the revelation that mobile technology is a genuine cancer risk. Research needs to be performed by neutral parties, not the industry. Do you really trust a multi-national industry to be utterly honest?
Anonymous
You're absolutely bonkers mate!
Anonymous
You're absolutely bonkers mate!
DH
Perhaps he is the only one who is sane.
DH
Perhaps he is the only one who is sane.
Pages
Add a new comment