I might be a little out of he loop when it comes to what is on television. I don’t really watch it all that often, and when I do, I usually am watching a DVR recording, so I don’t really sit through commercials.
Yet the other day I caught this on TV. Seeing it really annoyed me a lot. There’s nothing new in terms of the claims being made. The product is certainly not the first of its type, but seeing these false claims being fed to the public through mainstream mass marketing is all the more infuriating. The public becomes that much more indoctrinated with falsehoods and the producers of this product laugh all the way to the bank, as members of the public buy something that they don’t need and serves no purpose.
It’s a slick ad campaign. I have to admit it.
It starts off with a common, but completely inaccurate comparison. Yes, tobacco company executives did say that they didn’t think smoking caused cancer. But when it comes to evaluating the health risks of something, corporate executives are not really regarded as the most credible source of information, anyway. That is what scientific studies are for. In the case of tobacco smoking, the evidence that smoking increased the risk of cancer began to accumulate in the early 20th century, not that long after mass produced cigarettes made heavy daily smoking commonplace. By the 1930′s, the data was pretty solid. But even before tobacco smoking was linked to lung cancer, the mainstream medical establishment agreed that smoking was not a healthy habit and that it had negative impacts on respiratory health. (More info on this here)
In the case of RF radiation, we have some pretty conclusive data that would seem to indicate that, no, it does not cause cancer. RF radiation is non-ionizing and does not directly effect the chemistry of molecules like DNA. It therefore does not cause the kind of damage that could result in cancer. The subject of RF energy and health has been one of interest since at least the 1920′s. There have been numerous studies on mobile phones and potential health impacts, but even before they existed, we had decades worth of scientific data on the biological effects of microwaves.
That’s probably why they don’t do much in the way of citing studies. They do show a few snippets of statements of supposed harm from mobile phones. But that’s it.
Their argument seems to come down to an “appeal to common sense,” although a faulty one. “The truth is obvious. Absorbing radiation into your body or the side of your face is bad for you. It’s even worse for your kids.” Of course, it’s not obvious. Determining whether something in the environment causes cancer requires scientific investigation. It’s not intuitive.
Yet the way it is phrased, using words like “hour after hour of radiation” might make it seem intuitive. Perhaps if they had said “Sub infrared energy” or something like that, a bit less gripping than “radiation,” it wouldn’t seem so compelling.
Of course, the ad also claims other benefits from the case, aside from health protection. I really have my doubts that it would improve reception. The antenna in your phone is already engineered to be as efficient as possible, given the available space. Directing transmissions away from your head may not be helpful, because the nearest cell tower could actually be in the direction of your head, with the signals passing through your body to get to your phone.
The claim that the case has the benefit of protecting the phone and being a good overall aftermarket case may well be true. However, there are plenty of good aftermarket phone cases out there. They can be bought for a lot less than this thing. Also, they don’t resort to dishonesty in order to get buyers.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 6:59 pm and is filed under Bad Science, inverse square, media, Obfuscation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions