Pre-empt the Radiation or Die

At West Point, in a speech, President George W. Bush shared the doctrine of pre-emption with his cadets that he articulated as a countermeasure to September 11 attacks. Pre-emption, defined as the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack, has long been accepted as legitimate and appropriate under international law. In the New National Security Strategy, however, the Bush's first administration was broadening the meaning to encompass preventive war as well, in which force may be used even without the evidence. This particular idea had still been severely debated and really staled but Professor Lawrie Challis's invention has brought the President's angle back into perspective.

A simple magnetic bead can reduce the radiation from hands-free mobile phones to virtually zero. His set of kits stops the radio waves traveling up the wire and into the head. His take was mobile industry should start using it as a standard and promote it as a marketing material.

Mobile Manufacturers Forum rejected Professor Challis's call for them to be used on hands-free kits. They said, "Beads can have an impact. But the bigger issue is that mobile phones are tested to be comply with standards and have been passed safe."

Reducing emissions to the head to zero is possible but manufacturers neglect to put them on hands-free kits. Ignorance is bless. Tests are king. The reality is, even one customer with skepticism of practices is enough for an avalanche in the industry.

Look at the tobacco industry? Undoubtedly, the most regretful people not to come up with such an idea like Bush's were they. The most reviled industry has reached the peak level of saturation but could not cope with ceaseless accusations since the beginning of the 90s and lost enormous ground. The strategy of being contentious in good, old days - just like telecom is doing today - triggered looming litigation threats, which in turn, caused big tobacco companies' stock market value to plummet dramatically.

Today, ranging from pharma to food, plenty of industries would be feeling the same pressure that tobacco guys had a decade ago. The lesson is obvious. If a considerably large company is somewhat related to health, it is to their benefit to take extra care of sanitary issues.

Professor Challis accepts that there is no evidence saying mobile phones are harmful to health. Though, he also points out that people have not been using them long enough for us to be sure. He, as the chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Program, has a concrete point.

Adding to that, customers need to see companies doing everything they could to better serve to their health. Customers are customers but they are more hostile than competitors when it comes to the reasons of their doctor visits.

The simple, softheaded strategy is pre-empting the attack through applying Challis's technology. This is a golden opportunity given to the mobile manufacturers. Take it, don't leave it!

On one of those "Today Show" with Matt Lauer, Donald Trump said: "I learned a lot from my brother who was an alcoholic? And I watched his life just be destroyed, I don't drink, I don't smoke. I never had a drug in my life ... alcohol is a drug. I mean, alcohol and tobacco are both terrible drugs. And, you know, I'd like to see the lawyers start going after the alcohol companies, cause I think alcohol is a much greater detriment than cigarettes."

Legendary icon can be called sentimental. Though, he is pointing fingers in front of the public and lawyers would be excited to follow his order. However, the reality is that, the effect would not be as bad as tobacco industry as they achieved to pre-empt the attack by expanding their product line into non-alcoholic beverages and transformed their holistic market message to 'Drink Responsibly'. This has put industry into low-key.

Every possible way to improve end users' healthy relationship with the product needs to be heeded. On some extreme cases, it may be unattainable. Then, companies should focus on health on their R&D purposes and align their product line accordingly, which can be named as pre-emption. Challis's finding, in that respect, is given. Even though there is no sign of an imminent attack, it is the future where problems and past where answers lie. If mobile industry insists on not accepting it, customers will be there to hunt them down.

###

Burak Fenercioglu is a freelance writer and a marketeer for a computer network security company for over 4 years. His writings are primarily focusing on ideas, innovations and strategy where you can find them under http://burakfenerci.blogspot.com