Earlier this week, the New York Times chose to publish an article with the headline “Could wearable computers be as harmful as cigarettes?” (That was later toned down to “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech,” apparently in response to the criticism generated by the article, though the original headline lives on in the article’s URL.) We’ll skip over the question of why a Style Section author was chosen to tackle a topic that was all about science, and turn to why so many have objected to this article. Many have written some good critiques (including one by Russell Brandom for The Verge), so I’ll just hit the high points.
The article tries to draw a connection between cigarettes and wearable technology. The point is that doctors used to endorse cigarettes, not knowing that they cause cancer. Maybe wearables also cause cancer, and we just don’t know it yet. At some level, that’s a possibility, but there’s practically no evidence to indicate that there’s any cause for concern, though there is an enormous body of work that indicates that there is no danger. The author points to the evidence that cellphone use causes brain tumors, and then makes the leap that smartwatches that also use cellphone technology could also cause cancer.
The problem with this is that the author takes a completely unbalanced and ill-informed view of the cellphone research. The scientific community generally accepts that there is no definitive evidence connecting cellphone emissions with cancer (unlike the widely-accepted carcinogenic effects of smoking tobacco). Instead, the author cites questionable sources, including a doctor who has been cited by the FDA for mislabeling products or making unsubstantiated health claims. The author also seized on a Center for Disease Control (CDC) report that concluded that “more research is needed,” implying that a possible link between cellphones and cancer remains unresolved. The fact is that almost all scientific study points to additional questions that need to be studied. The author completely misrepresented the results of the CDC report.
There’s always a risk when mainstream media attempts to cover a technical subject, but a publication with the stature of the New York Times should know better than to publish a piece as flawed and misleading as this one. And sadly, this is a bell that will be difficult for the Gray Lady to unring.
The New York Times appended the following “Editor’s Note” to the article on March 21:
“The Disruptions column in the Styles section on Thursday, discussing possible health concerns related to wearable technology, gave an inadequate account of the status of research about cellphone radiation and cancer risk.
“Neither epidemiological nor laboratory studies have found reliable evidence of such risks, and there is no widely accepted theory as to how they might arise. According to the World Health Organization, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all said there is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship. While researchers are continuing to study possible risks, the column should have included more of this background for balance.
“In addition, one source quoted in the article, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has been widely criticized by experts for his claims about disease risks and treatments. More of that background should have been included, or he should not have been cited as a source.
“An early version of the headline for the article online — “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” — also went too far in suggesting any such comparison.”
its been proven time and time again that electromagnetic radiation affects cells in a negative way and leads to health issues…….
what dont you get dude?
all electical components give off electromagnetic radiation?
ever heard of electromagnetic sensitivity?
Steve, I’d welcome any sources that you can provide that prove “electromagnetic radiation affects cells in a negative way.” Keep in mind that sunlight is electromagnetic radiation, and our bodies use it to create the Vitamin D we need to avoid health problems. Our bodies have been exposed to broadcast radio and television electromagnetic radiation for a century, without ill effects being “proven time and time again.” If this were a real health risk, Pizza Hut workers would be dropping like flies due to the emissions from the electric ovens. Did you know that steel-belted radial tires generate significant electromagnetic emissions, yet we don’t read about car drivers getting cancer.
There’s a lot of “emotional science” research out there that may sound impressive but it doesn’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the New York Times came as close to a retraction on this as they every do indicates just how wrong this story was.