Everyone knew it was coming. Everyone who cared to listen that is. Concerted legal action alleging use of mobile phones has caused brain tumors is to be launched in the United States. No surprise there. Everyone knew such litigation has been under preparation for some time. The only unknown was the timing.
I really wish that were true. I really wish everyone had been prepared to listen. But the sad fact is many in the mobile industry, particularly the manufacturing sector, have ignored the mobile health issue, dismissing it as an unwelcome irritant.
There are sound reasons for this dismissive approach. “All our equipment conforms to the relevant safety standards” is undoubtedly true. If the scientific experts agree on safety limits, then the industry adheres strictly to those limits. What more can they do?
“There is no confirmed scientific evidence for any adverse health effects” is also true. It may always be true. Establishing an incontrovertible cause-and-effect relationship in such a complex situation is a near impossibility. If there is no evidence for any effects, then why should the industry take the issue seriously?
These may be sound reasons, but they are irrelevant. The mobile health issue is about perceptions, not facts. If people believe a risk exists, then the mobile community has to address that perception, not dismiss it as irrational. The argument will not be won by parading scientific facts; scientific research alone will never produce a clear-cut, universally accepted answer.
Science, however, is where the debate inevitably starts-in the courtroom as well as in the bar. Up until now, in the courtroom at least, science is where the debate has concluded. Previous litigation has failed-either dismissed by the judge or withdrawn by the prosecution-apparently because of inconclusive scientific evidence.
This has been widely misinterpreted. Cases have not been dropped through lack of scientific proof. Cases have been dropped because the prosecution has been unable to establish reasonable cause for doubt. That situation will not continue forever. Reasonable cause for doubt is a balance between the strength of the prosecution evidence and the credibility of the defendant. At some point, a judge will decide a case has sufficient merit to be allowed to go before a jury. That is when some chickens will come home to roost.
That is also where the timing comes in. Those who have been listening know litigation has been out there waiting for an opportune moment. The thought has been this moment will occur when some new, albeit inconclusive, research raises the level of public anxiety above an acceptable threshold, strengthening the prosecution’s case. But public anxiety is also affected by its perception of the industry itself, potentially weakening the credibility of the defendant.
Ultimately, the industry will be judged on whether it has behaved responsibly. Such judgments, whether by judge or jury, are inevitably subjective. Sentiment plays a large part. The way the mobile industry is perceived by the public could well be a decisive factor.
The mobile industry starts with a decided disadvantage. It is big and prosperous. It is liable to be viewed in the same light as the energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, agricultural and food industries. They all had health scares, which were strenuously denied but eventually exposed after extensive, and profitable, legal action. Big industries are clearly all the same-they can’t be trusted.
The mobile industry, as a key part of the telecoms sector, is now decidedly out of favor. Telecom share values have plummeted, and investors suddenly have little positive to say about mobile. Not a good time to seek further funding to cover the expenses of third-generation (3G) licenses and network rollout. And 3G is hardly driven by market demand. Not a good time to massively increase the number of base station sites.
The Precautionary Principle has arrived. The publication of specific absorption rates (SAR) values on handsets is being mandated in many markets. The youth market is exploding, just as government warnings on handset use by children are being considered. The mobile community has suddenly become the subject of intense scrutiny. Public anxiety about its motives is rampant. Whatever comfort factor existed is fast disappearing.
Given the role of sentiment in subjective decisions, there could well be a timing advantage here. Attacking an opponent while he is concussed can be a good tactic.
