Dialogue: A case for weaning us off mobiles before it's too late

SHELLEY BRIDGEMAN* detects ominous similarities between
cigarettes and an addiction of the communications age.

Distinct and disturbing parallels exist between the history of cigarettes and the debate raging about a much-loved communication device. And those similarities should prompt us to seriously consider the potential fallout of that icon of modernity - the mobile phone.

It should also be noted that, thanks to the unprecedented proliferation of these phones, even relatively low incidences of undesirable effects could lead to widespread health problems.

What, then, are these parallels?

The research: the World Health Organisation is just one of the bodies conducting significant research in the area, but its findings won't be out for a few years. Where once smoking was a focus for research, scientists the world over now have an interest in the potential links between health problems and mobile phones. The United States, Britain, Sweden, Canada and Australia have all developed their own studies on the subject.

The experiments: unconfirmed reports allege that 20 years ago the Soviet military experimented with radiation, similar to that emitted by mobile phones, to try to discover how to intentionally cause brain damage.

It sounds a bit James Bond-ish - but there you go. Elsewhere, other experiments involved training rats to swim through cloudy water to a platform. The rats which were subsequently exposed to mobile-phone emissions forgot the way to the platform, while their unexposed cousins retained their memory. Makes a change from the tales of chain-smoking monkeys being used to record the effects of cigarettes.

The diseases: the consensus seems to be that exposure to microwave emissions can disable the safety barriers that protect our brains from toxins contained in our blood. The suggested repercussions are as varied and disturbing as the ills associated with smoking.

Take your pick from a smorgasbord which includes brain tumours, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cancer of acoustic nerve and saliva gland, short-term memory loss, headaches, asthma and insomnia. There is even talk that the radiation can result in birth defects and reduced fertility levels.

The passive dangers: passive smoking became the catch-phrase of the late 20th century and it is now believed in some quarters that those near a mobile-phone user can receive second-hand radiation. Soon, restaurants and offices may have to designate areas as mobile phone-free. Will that be phoning or non-phoning, madam?

The contraptions: filtertip cigarettes were supposed to reduce the amount of harmful substances inhaled by the smoker. In the mobile phone age, the equivalents are phone shields and hand-free kits designed to minimise radiation levels reaching the user. (To complicate matters, some research suggests that the hand-free cords may, in fact, channel even higher levels of radiation straight into the ear.)

The optimistic claims: just as cigarette advertisements from the 1950s used to claim that the product had beneficial side-effects, such as soothing irritated throats and easing coughs, a lone study has suggested that the brain warming associated with mobile phone use can enhance brain power.

The ratings: cigarette packs display levels of nicotine and tar, and a similar rating exists for mobile-phone emissions. The SAR measurement standard conveys the maximum radiation that a user can absorb from a particular mobile phone.

Apparently, all phones will eventually come marked with this rating, thus thoughtfully providing consumers with the ability to select the precise amount of radiation they require. Customer choice at its finest.

The warnings: there has been talk of warning labels about possible harm appearing on everyone's mobile phone, or even recorded messages playing before each call is made. No doubt this concept was inspired by the ominous health warnings on cigarette packets.

The court cases: tobacco companies faced the wrath of the courts in the litigious United States, and some pioneering lawsuits have been filed claiming that certain cases of illness and death may be attributed to mobile-phone use.

The confusion: there are several interested parties - mobile-phone companies, governments, universities, consumer groups, researchers, scientists, health professionals, WHO and the users themselves - but little agreement about the precise effects of mobile-phone use, which is hardly surprising since this technology is, relatively speaking, in its infancy. After all, how many decades did it take for the cigarette issue to become clearcut?

It makes you wonder if future governments will launch quitting programmes and advertising campaigns to wean us off mobiles. Perhaps Auckland poseurs will be identified as a high-risk group and targeted for special help.

Now, where did I put my mobile phone? I forget.

* Shelley Bridgeman is an Auckland writer.