“Anti-Radiaton” Mobile Phone Device TV Ads

November 23rd, 2014
submit to reddit Share

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.

(Direct link to youtube video)

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



56 Responses to ““Anti-Radiaton” Mobile Phone Device TV Ads”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. 51
    Anon Says:

            Shafe said:

    You seem to be defining Christian morality as the morality of the despots of Christian theocracies (among other Christian groups, to be sure.) Yes there’s plenty of murder and mayhem in Christian history as there is in history outside of Christianity. In fact, there’s enough variation in Christian history and philosophy, that you could conceivably define Christian morality any way you like.

    If it can be whatever you like then I’d have to say it’s not a morality.

            Shafe said:

    I’d assert that Christian morality comes from the New Covenant scriptures of the Christian Bible. Those are the defining texts of the religion, and they expressly supersede the morality of the Old Covenant.

    But didn’t Jesus say that he did not come to break the old laws?

            Shafe said:

    So I’d say that while much of Christian history has been spent steeped in hypocrisy, using the Bible to beat down and subjugate people and to consolidate power under the Church, the players in that history cannot be viewed as paragons of Christian morality, and those actions do not define Christian morality.

    But isn’t that what happens almost every time Christianity becomes an established religion? It’d be like arguing that Communism isn’t about subjugating people when that happens every time someone tries to implement it.

            Shafe said:

    It’s not as though they were fleeing a free society to impose their religion elsewhere, they were fleeing the oppression of a theocratic despot.

    Fleeing one oppressive society for the purpose of imposing another different oppressive society just as bad but with different targets is what most of the puritans did.

            DV82XL said:

    That’s the only relevant question – and one for which I have no pat answer. However the first stage is going to be getting everyone to agree that changes, major changes, are needed and history shows that as the American’s themselves observed in their own Declaration of Independence: “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms [of government] to which they are accustomed.”

    The question then becomes, how do we get the people to realise that there’s a problem? How much worse do things need to get? Can we make incremental changes or do we need to throw everything out and start over?


    Quote Comment
  2. 52
    Anon Says:

            BMS said:

    You’re confusing Christianity with Islam.

    Nope, both religions agree on that matter.

            BMS said:

    You mean Soloman was a Christian?!! Who’d have thunk it?

    Also no, but a lot of fundamentalist Christians seem to think he had good advise on raising kids and Jesus did not change the Jewish family customs.


    Quote Comment
  3. 53
    BMS Says:

            Anon said:

    … but a lot of fundamentalist Christians seem to think he had good advise on raising kids …

    Ah yes, I hear Fundamentalist Christians advising each other to chop children in two all the time. /sarc

    … and Jesus did not change the Jewish family customs.

    Since Jesus didn’t have a family, that is hardly surprising. Nevertheless, subsequent Christian leaders did. How many Christians do you know who have had their sons circumcised for religious reasons?

    It’s hard to take you seriously when you presume to speak for everyone, but in this case you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    One would think you’d quit, now that it has become obvious that nobody following this thread is taking you seriously and in fact are now simply making fun of you, but I guess your arrogance won’t let you stop. Shafe seems to have explained it best: you just like spewing stuff for the sake of arguing. Have fun.


    Quote Comment
  4. 54
    Anon Says:

            BMS said:

    Ah yes, I hear Fundamentalist Christians advising each other to chop children in two all the time. /sarc

    I do hear them talking how important it is to abus^H^H^H^Hsmack their kids a lot (while Rabbis are saying that interpretation is a mistranslation).

            BMS said:

    Since Jesus didn’t have a family, that is hardly surprising.

    Though he did require his disciples to renounce their families and did he condemn any of the old Jewish laws?


    Quote Comment
  5. 55
    Shafe Says:

            Anon said:

    …did he condemn any of the old Jewish laws?

    He certainly contradicted them.

    e.g.
    What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’


    Quote Comment
  6. 56
    AKA the A Says:

            Paul Studier said:

    Mine has a 48wh battery…

    That is one heck of a phone battery you got there :D
    (this would be typical of a 15” notebook, not a phone)

    Anyways, the top end limit is supposed to be 2W EIRP peak, not average (at least here in EU), but the phone is usually incapable of even reaching that number, let alone exceeding it, simply because the coverage is good enough and using a weaker transmitter is cheaper.
    Other reasons might include fear of excessive harmonics, (GSM has fairly narrow channels, so one overpowered phone could easily nuke a fair bit of them) or power saving and heat management.

    If anything, I’d be worried about lithium cell that is used to power it, those things can be quite vicious if the safeties fail, the RF is perfectly harmless ;-)


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string emLtDp to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam