Addiction for the Next Generation

I wrote this 10 years ago, but it's just as interesting today, I think...

Back in the 1950’s a lot of people smoked, and many of them did not understand the risks. There are a lot of lawsuits currently going on that claim the cigarette industry knew the risks and ignored them to make a buck. The main issue of these lawsuits is that the industry not only ignored the risks and aided in keeping the public ignorant of these risks, but also took steps to increase the addictive nature of cigarettes. Furthermore, it is said that they targeted children to insure that they’ll have another generation of smokers to keep the profits coming after the current generation dies off.

It seems to me that the key issue in these lawsuits is not whether cigarettes are unhealthy, because I can’t imagine somebody could think otherwise of burning something and sucking the smoke into their lungs…but since we live in a society that used to attach leaches to sick people to “bleed out” the illness then I guess I’ll have to let that one go. The issue seems to be whether the tobacco industry knew about these extent of the health risks, which range from cancer in the smoker to chronic asthma in the children of smokers, and hid this information from the public. Beyond that, however, is the question of whether cigarette makers also made their product more addictive by inflating the level of nicotine, the addictive drug in cigarettes. Forget about tobacco being a “tumor-causing, teeth-staining, smelling, puking, habit;” it’s an addiction, plain and simple. I have a habit of running my fingers through my hair when I’m thinking, but I’ve never said, “I’ve got to go outside in the freezing-cold because I need to run my fingers through my hair.”

The result of much of the so-called “tobacco legislation” is that tobacco companies now have to put larger warning labels on their products. They have to take steps to discourage underage smoking…sort of like having a “marketing” and an “anti-marketing” department. (How would you like to work in an industry that MUST take steps to discourage people from buying your product?) They’re also making billion-dollar donations to states in order to subsidize health-care costs for tobacco-related illness.

Back in the 50’s many people smoked because it was considered “cool.” How cool James Dean would have been as a 70-year-old cancer patient instead of a Rebel Without a Cause is something we’ll never know. Nevertheless, cigarettes were portrayed as something “cool” people had and if you weren’t smoking you were “square.” These days fewer cool people smoke because the health risks are clear, but there’s one thing they do have and that’s CELL PHONES!! Cell phones are not at all like cigarettes, right? They pose no health risks, right? Cellular phone companies don’t target children, right? Wrong, wrong, and wrong!

Many families have microwave ovens in their homes. Microwaves are used to cook food and the ovens provide excellent protection from the harmful radiation with all sorts of seals and automatic-shut-off mechanisms; but what about cellular phones? These phones also produce microwaves and the most common way to use them is to put one against your head. Most people wouldn’t dream of putting their head in a microwave oven, then again most people wouldn’t dream of wrapping their lips around the exhaust pipe of a running automobile, but inhaling the carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke amounts to a similar analogy.

In recent studies, mice exposed to microwaves mimicking the effect of cellular phones have had significant memory loss to the tune of forgetting how to swim; so if follows that putting a microwave-emitting device against one’s head is not particularly wise, but hey, as long as it’s “cool” right? What the heck…if the cool people of the 50’s could ignore the possibility of lung cancer why can’t the cool people of the 90’s ignore the possibility of brain cancer?

This danger seems to be greater with children because studies show that the penetration of radiation from the antenna goes deeper into a child’s brain because their heads and brains are smaller, but also because the conductivity properties of those tissues that are still developing differ, and it facilitates more of an exposure. Regardless, the cell-phone industry appears to be targeting young people with phone models bearing the likeness of various Disney characters and communications providers are encouraging people to switch to cellular-only calling plans. In the words of CNN anchor, Wolf Blitzer, “What the cellular-phone industry is now doing is what the tobacco industry did with its Joe Camel ads.”

Without much research savvy, you can find conflicting evidence about whether cellular phones pose health risks, much in the same way you can find conflicting evidence about tobacco. The similarities do not end there, though. Much of the research conducted that concluded that cigarettes do not pose a health risk, was (surprise!) funded by the tobacco industry. So when I read a quote stating, “We believe that wireless phones are safe, including use by children.” I’m not surprised to also read that it was a spokesman for AT&T Wireless that made it.

Do the companies who manufacture and sell cellular phones and calling plans know that microwave radiation is harmful? Sure. Do they sell them anyway in hopes that they’ll make a buck? You bet. So now that we’ve got the addiction for the next generation underway, we can look forward to the lawsuits continuing…but next time the defendants won’t be Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds, they’ll be Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson.