What do cell phones and cigarettes have in common? Absolutely nothing.
September 7th, 2010
|
| Share |
if this video was not intended to be taken seriously, it would be the perfect tool for teaching logical fallacies.
So what is it that they have in common? Well, according to this video, it’s the following:
1. Both are made by multi-billion dollar corporations.
I suppose this is generally true, although multi-billion dollar corporations also make automobiles, computers, aircraft, paper towels, underwear, duct tape, aspirin and many many many other things.
2. Both products have addictive qualities.
Uh, well, strictly speaking, cell phones are not addictive in any physical or biochemical sense. Using them may be psychologically addictive, but just about any enjoyable activity can be psychologically addictive. People get “addicted” to television, Facebook, video games, pornography, junk food, sex, sports, instant messaging etc etc etc.
In the true sense of being “addictive,” cell phones and cigarettes could not be more different. Cigarettes contain nicotine, a substance which causes physical and neurological addiction. Cell phones don’t have any chemical interactions with the body. They may just be fun to use.
3. Both have been linked to illness.
If by “linked” you mean someone has at some point claimed that they may be the cause of illness. There’s no definitive scientific evidence for cell phones being linked to illness – although there is for cigarettes. Some other things that have been “linked” to illness: the full moon, evil spirits, “chemtrails,” HAARP, sinful behavior, undead corpses, astrological influences, warewolves, banshees, black cats, witchcraft, the number thirteen and foul odors. All of these have, at one time or another, been blamed for being the cause of illness!
4. The industries deny health concerns.
This one is my favorite. The circular logic in it is absolutely breathtaking. The proof of harm is apparently based on the fact that the companies deny that it causes harm. Think about this for a second. The act of denying something now is proof that it is true. So what is a company to say if their product is not harmful? That it is harmful?
Lets consider the logical implications here…
And from here, the whole logic doesn’t get any better. Why should we have warnings? Why should health officials tell pregnant women not to use cell phones? Just because. Also, there’s a non-peer-reviewed statement thrown in about prenatal cell phone exposure. That’s about the extent of the supporting evidence.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 7th, 2010 at 6:22 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, inverse square. 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
September 7th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
This is what we have reaped from a failing school system, and the dishonesty that has become endemic in business, and in politics in the West. Corporations and governments do lie, and without the intellectual tools to make critical evaluations, large sectors of the public default to the position that everything they are told by these sources is untrue. Ironically, in an attempt to keep themselves from being manipulated by this stand, they reder themselves more vulnerable.
With the worst of this manipulation pure Orwellian Doublespeak right out of 1984, is it any wonder the common schlep can’t tell the difference anymore.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 12:06 am
I see. So I’ll make the claim that watching youtube videos has been linked to illness. And that the video industry has denied any link to serious illness caused by intake of their product.
See I can do it to.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 4:37 am
Greenpeace regularly make me feel ill. Do you think I could sue?
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Can you prove that environmentalism does not cause cancer? Where are the warnings about stress induced heart attacks?
Seriously, I have a friend who works closely with AIDS patients in India. They said the major health risk is the identification of the person with AIDS (true or not) that causes rejection and living on the streets.
I about lost it a few months ago when I was traveling through the rural Philippines and a friend told me that a local group was opposing a Cell tower because of the radiation “hazard.” I asked my friend if they used a microwave oven – which is pervasive even in the province “Oh Yes.” Did you know that a microwave oven is many times more powerful than that cell tower? I asked. We had a long discussion about radiation and it’s effects – at least long enough for my wife’s eyes to start rolling.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 10:30 am
What do they have in common? Uh, both start with a C?
The logic here is really just enough to make me want to bang my head on the wall.
Sure, corporations sometimes lie, but that does not mean everything they say is a lie! It also does not mean every product made by a corporation is dangerous! Any idiot should be able to figure that out. I don’t trust the government 100% but if the government says the earth is round, I’m not going to insist it must be flat.
What is wrong with a woman or child having a cell phone? I mean, I could see with children some risk of them using it improperly or being a distraction, but if there’s no health risk what’s wrong with advertising to that demographic?
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Roy, don’t forget the all-important fact that cancer starts with a C also
The possibility of cell-phones causing harm through their RF radiation has been studied to death. Even if some future study decides there could be some slight harmvery infrequently, we already know that the possible degree of harm is so low that consideration of it should vanish into the noise of a real assessment about the pros and cons of cell-phone usage. Use while driving, while studying; use in case of emergency, to change plans, etc. These are far bigger factors. Direct health impacts are known to be zero in comparison.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
What do cell phones and cigarettes have in common? Absolutely nothing.
Well, both are made of common matter.
And thus both contain deadly radioactive particles!
Why do you hate the children so much? How much is Big Radiation paying you?
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Can somebody quote an article that explains the mechanism from which RF radiation causes the cancerous tissue to form?
No?
She uses some rather dubious sources as well in that presentation.
A newspaper article? Very peer reviewed, not to mention todays so called journalists who can’t recognise critical review if you hit them over the head with it.
My belief? Belief is one thing, fact is another…PhD of what I wonder.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Well, both of them are dangerous to have in hand while driving. That’s about it.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
http://www.itstartswiththeflu.com/
It’s begun. They’re finally killing us
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Before you get too down on Education, it’s not just us. I gave a small group a project to do a research paper on whether or not cell phones caused cancer. They went out spend an hour doing “research” on the internet and despite everything I said about how bad their sources were they remained convinced that they had found the new Gospel.
In short the ease of dissemenation of bad information is as much a root problem as anything else. It’s simply too easy now for charlatans to get together, find some PhD to quote and look like they have done loads of legit research. ANd the ability to control commentary makes it worse; all you see are testimonials to the accuracy of the dissinformation.
We live in the age where an idea, right or wrong, spreads at the speed of light and now we must live with all that implies…..
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
A Teacher said:
Unlike some I do not blame the poor sods on the front line, that toil in the classrooms for the state of education. For ten years I was an elected representative, and most of that time chaired the parent’s committee of one of the largest school boards in Canada. I know better than most that there is more than enough blame to spread around. And that would start with the parents, and move on through the various layers government, the unions, management, and the apathy of society in general that think they have no stake in what is happening in the schools, if they don’t have children enrolled.
No, my remark above was meant to underline that since we collectively decided through our indifference, that the primary role of schools would be custodial, the curriculum has been watered down to the point where it is outside the capabilities of even the very best teachers to train students to think critically, or indeed to cover the fundamentals of natural philosophy with any rigor. It is this lack of foundational knowledge, and the tools to use it, that is the problem, and I believe the reason that many have retreated into a shell of precaution bordering on paranoia.
But as for the poor bloody classroom teacher, most of those that I know are more acutely aware of the issues than the public, and suffer more for their inability to effect change. Please don’t think I was directing my bile at them.
Quote Comment
September 10th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Can you give a bit more information on the ‘Evidence’ used in the video?
Quote Comment