|
| Thread: It's raining data, hallelujah. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
posted December 08, 2014 01:48 AM |
|
|
Nice pic indeed. I have a laugh when I see something like this. A while ago I saw a group of asian youths in a restaurant who were all staring at their phones, and talking to each other only to show something on the screen of their phone.
I think that being too absorbed with digital communication can hinder personal relationships. Digital communication is easy, there is less investment, it is easy to approach and step away at any moment, easier to conceal things. Personal communication requires more investment and makes one more vulnerable - these are important factors for a sense of close human connection.
Digital communication does not convey body language, touch and feeling of a person's energy. It is an easy, safe and watered-down version. Certainly has its place, uses and benefits, but will never be a substitute for face-to-face for closer friendships and relationships. So I think the issue is over-use of digital communication.
I like this illustration of the technology vs use concept:
Quote:
Q: If someone from the 1950s suddenly appeared today, what would be the most difficult thing to explain to them about life today?
A: I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man.
I use it to look at pictures of cats and get in arguments with strangers.
The internet is proof. How much of the internet use is for wikipedia and learning, how much is for porn, and how much is for lolcats and such? I think that our wants are shaping the technology.
I see Facebook as the perfect digital ego trip - it lets a person paint a picture of their life exactly how they want it, censoring anything they don't like, showing off how many "friends" they have. It lets people exchange token appreciation (likes) and grow each others' perceived social value by linking up as "friends".
Again, good for sharing photos with a large number of people. Good as an address book for acquaintances whose contact details may change. But can we know a person from what they want others to think and see of them?
Then there is a big issue about the safety of microwave communication technology - it isn't safe. However, unlike many other forms of harmful substances, the damage is slow, long-term and difficult to detect because microwave radiation damages individual cells in the human body. This produces gradual and usually painless weakening that increases the chance of more common deadly conditions such as cancer. There is also strong evidence showing DNA damage, suggesting that effects will start showing up more strongly in the next generations. (Here's a good source for anyone who is interested.)
The microwave transmission doesn't go in a straight beam from the phone to the tower, it is radiated in all directions. The number of cell phones, wi-fi routers and cell towers is increasing at an exponential rate with each new generation of mobile networks. Every transmitter and device radiates through every person who is within a few to several kilometer radius. The technology was found to be profitable and rushed to the market and we're all a part of a giant experiment to see what happens.
Needless to say I prefer wired tech. Wireless has its beneficial uses, ex: emergencies, texting when out and about, etc. But microwaving myself and everyone around to watch a video on a tiny screen seems stupid.
To sum it up, I think that there are important questions to consider about how this technology works, what we use it for, and whether it can really replace what it seems to be replacing.
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 02:50 AM |
|
|
Based on looking at more reputable sources, there is not much evidence of a link between cell phones and cancer. That source doesn't look very reliable - it's alternative medicine, which is generally nonsense.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 06:22 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Based on looking at more reputable sources, there is not much evidence of a link between cell phones and cancer. That source doesn't look very reliable - it's alternative medicine, which is generally nonsense.
This.
Also, +QP awarded to Neraus, based on JJ's implicit recommendation. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 06:49 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Based on looking at more reputable sources, there is not much evidence of a link between cell phones and cancer. That source doesn't look very reliable - it's alternative medicine, which is generally nonsense.
I'd be interested to see your reputable sources.
Also I'm curious what made you think that the source I've linked isn't very reliable? And where did it talk about alternative medicine?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you haven't even looked at the interview.
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 06:58 AM |
|
|
Val, the website you linked to has a link to naturopathy in the sidebar and talks about "natural and divine law" in many places - clear signs of alternative kooks.
The Mayo Clinic is one example of a reputable source.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 08:01 AM |
|
Edited by Valeriy at 08:11, 08 Dec 2014.
|
I see... The person giving the interview is not actually a part of that organization. He is a professor of physics who has briefed multiple governments on this subject and served in intelligence services dealing with microwave weapons.
Speaking of credibility of the link you've posted, it is an article written by a medical doctor who speaks about three studies. He correctly cites the fact that WHO classified cellphone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic". This happened in 2011 and for perspective their "possibly carcinogenic" category also includes DDT and gasoline engine exhaust.
I would say that a credible source needs to look at hundreds of studies that exist on the subject and not have the cellphone industry as one of its sponsors or advertisers. Speaking of which, The BioInitiative Report.
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 08:30 AM |
|
|
I wont be able to link anything at the moment because it's been a while since I've read this but if I'm not mistaken, there is a production standard on cell phones limiting the amount of radiation they spread. I remember, the article said fake products such as cheap iPhones made in Taiwan etc. violate these standards and even if regulated cell phones turn out to be harmless, these can still be harmful on the long term. Of course, this would also be perfectly fitting for the industries goal on taking out cheap competition. Assuming such relationships between science and big capital is not as far fetched as conspiracy theories, but it's still just a big what if.
They probably wont be fabricating outright lies, yet they can manipulate and distort the gray areas of uncertainty according to their desired outcome. We know the oil industry did it with leaded gasoline before, trying to influence scientific research. They actually succeeded for quite a while. (The new Cosmos even has an episode on it, and I guess Neil deGrasse Tyson is credible enough.)
This seems to be one of those topics to me where there is too much disinformation, too much conflict of interest and too much profit involved. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to pass a verdict based on an adequately informed opinion.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 08:51 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
"Wasting time" is not a 20th century invention.
It is, actually. At least for the majority of people.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 12:45 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
mvassilev said:
Based on looking at more reputable sources, there is not much evidence of a link between cell phones and cancer. That source doesn't look very reliable - it's alternative medicine, which is generally nonsense.
This.
Also, +QP awarded to Neraus, based on JJ's implicit recommendation.
First of all thank you, it is an honor for me to receive such an accomplishment.
Now, to the topic at hand I would like to add that the possible health risks related to cellphones (or at least to my understanding) can only be seen after a lot of time, especially watching the sons of these afflicted people, but of course I don't really know what would happen and if it's really how I described it.
What I do know though is that this is another occasion to create confusion to the masses, I remember that a show about corrupt politicians and unfair corporation once aired an episode about the risks of cellphones, needless to say that it raised some questions to the legitimacy of that claim and that it just created such a confusion just to get more viewers.
So, it's still a minefield in my opinion...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 04:42 PM |
|
|
That bioinitiative report seems to be self-published and not peer-reviewed, and has been widely criticised by more reputable groups, which you can find if you Google it.
According to the best of actual evidence, at least based on what I've found, the link is either weak or nonexistent.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 04:51 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:55, 08 Dec 2014.
|
@Valeriy
This would be a reputable site for information. Bottom line is that there is no sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between low frequency radiation emitted by wireless devices and cancer. Evidence is really all that matters. Some organizations have classified low frequency radiation as potentially carcinogenic, but you shouldn't rush to over-interpret that. What it means is that more studies need to be done, and that's probably true. Fearmongering based on speculation and misinterpretation or overextrapolation of studies of unknown or poor relevance to humans is really unproductive, and actually irresponsible. Numerous technologies have been practically ruined by this kind of reckless precautionism (is that a word?). I think cell phones are firmly enough entrenched in our behavioral patterns that they aren't going to go the way of GMO without some hard evidence linking them to deleterious health effects (and even then...), but for me it's really the principle that matters. Risk assessments and management decisions should be strictly science-based. Frankly, I think the ramifications to social health as a result of misuse of electronic devices are far more threatening than any spurious link to cancer, but again... more research is called for.
(Here is another link to some reputable information.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:02, 08 Dec 2014.
|
Valeriy said:
I think that being too absorbed with digital communication can hinder personal relationships. Digital communication is easy, there is less investment, it is easy to approach and step away at any moment, easier to conceal things. Personal communication requires more investment and makes one more vulnerable - these are important factors for a sense of close human connection.
Digital communication does not convey body language, touch and feeling of a person's energy. It is an easy, safe and watered-down version. Certainly has its place, uses and benefits, but will never be a substitute for face-to-face for closer friendships and relationships. So I think the issue is over-use of digital communication.
yes, I think it's a good point, it allows you to have the benefits of a relationship without the bad sides. it makes empathy very difficult, which is good if you don't want to get too involved, but can be terrible otherwise, because the other person has no clue how bad you may feel.
I suppose many of you have one or several Facebook contacts who fill their walls with quotes in the likes of "you can't trust people" "don't care about what people think of you" "people only think about themselves", etc...
it looks like there are lots of people who only expect disappointment or betrayals from relationships, and internet is probably like a shield.
now, I doubt internet is the cause, imo the problem is a social model which promotes competition for gain, everyone fighting against everyone to reach a better place in society. if we had a model fundamentaly based on solidarity and cooperation instead, there would probably be far more trust between people.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 08:29 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
What it means is that more studies need to be done, and that's probably true.
Yes, but the thing is what are you going to do meanwhile? I know some people who are constantly on the phone because of their jobs and some of them always carry the phone in their pockets and use it with an earphone no matter what. That seems like a harmless precaution, what do they have to lose.
Corribus said:
Numerous technologies have been practically ruined by this kind of reckless precautionism
What are those technologies?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 10:12 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Yes, but the thing is what are you going to do meanwhile?
Why would you do anything? Should we do something about the Loch Ness monster, too?
Corribus said:
What are those technologies?
GMO is the most obvious. But there are plenty of other victims of irrational fears about perceived risks that don't exist or are over-exaggerated, at the expense of public health. Water fluoridation, vaccination, nuclear power, and so on. It's too early to throw nanotechnology on that list, but it could easily be the next one.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 10:22 PM |
|
|
|
nuclear power isn't that exagerated since there were major accidents
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 10:28 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
That bioinitiative report seems to be self-published and not peer-reviewed, and has been widely criticised by more reputable groups, which you can find if you Google it.
According to the best of actual evidence, at least based on what I've found, the link is either weak or nonexistent.
If we are to discuss this properly, I would need to see "the best of actual evidence" that you are referring to. The only one you've presented so far is a medical doctor's opinion piece talking about three studies that he didn't even take part in.
The bio-initiative report is actually a summary of hundreds of scientific studies which were done all over the world. These studies were collated together by the authors with the intention of evaluating the level of risk and coming up with a revised safety standard. This approach reduces the "single study bias" and looks at the broad picture by putting together hundreds of studies done by thousands of researchers all over the world.
I would need to see the links to assess the credibility of their criticism.
It is not my goal to change your mind as to whether this technology is safe or not - anyone can think whatever they want. But I consider this subject to be important and thus I don't accept unsubstantiated arguments when discussing it.
Corribus said:
This would be a reputable site for information. (Here is another link to some reputable information.)
The government safety standards for microwave radiation exposure are based on the assumption that microwave radiation only has thermal effects - in other words that it can only hurt a human by heating him/her like in a microwave oven. So it is often the minimum heating level, divided by a risk factor of 10 to 100 for public exposure standard.
The government has a vested financial interest in maintaining this position as it leases parts of the radiofrequency spectrum to the telecommunication companies for very large sums of money. Plus it gets to tax what is now one of the world's largest industries.
If you look through the list of studies in the bioinitiative report you will see that hundreds of studies show effects at exposure levels that are far below thermal (non-thermal effects).
The distinction between certainty and risk is important. Do we stop or at least slow down when we see that something is risky, or do we proceed at full steam until we are certain (at which point it is too late)?
Corribus said:
Bottom line is that there is no sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between low frequency radiation emitted by wireless devices and cancer. Evidence is really all that matters. Some organizations have classified low frequency radiation as potentially carcinogenic, but you shouldn't rush to over-interpret that. What it means is that more studies need to be done, and that's probably true. Fearmongering based on speculation and misinterpretation or overextrapolation of studies of unknown or poor relevance to humans is really unproductive, and actually irresponsible. Numerous technologies have been practically ruined by this kind of reckless precautionism (is that a word?).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that while we have some studies showing that cellphone and wi-fi radiation poses a health risk, some other studies show no health risk and overall the evidence is insufficient to be 100% certain. Therefore it is wrong to proceed with caution and OK to expose the entire population to exponentially increasing levels of microwave radiation.
History is a great learning tool, and here are some examples of this mentality: leaded petrol, tobacco smoking (it took several decades to "conclusively" prove that smoking causes lung cancer), asbestos, and use of uranium for tile and dinnerware glazing.
"Reckless" precautionism?? Seriously?
Corribus said:
GMO is the most obvious. But there are plenty of other victims of irrational fears about perceived risks that don't exist or are over-exaggerated, at the expense of public health. Water fluoridation, vaccination, nuclear power, and so on. It's too early to throw nanotechnology on that list, but it could easily be the next one.
All of the technologies that you've listed are actually dangerous, and yet are thriving. I'm seriously bothered by your insistence that we should experiment on the entire human population until it is proved beyond a speck of doubt that something is harmful. The problem with this mentality, regardless of which technology you apply it to, is that you're always going to be left with enormous health repercussions whenever you get it wrong. In case of DNA damage, it may be irreparable.
“The argument against smoking is statistical. No research anywhere in the world over the past thirty years has shown how diseases claimed to be associated with cigarette smoking are caused… There is no proof of causation of even one single death from cigarette smoking” – Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited, 28 July 1983.
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 10:31 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:31, 08 Dec 2014.
|
@Fauch
Nothing is 100% risk free. Coal plants and oil plants have seen their share of accidents as well. We continue to develop new technologies but at present they are inadequate to meet the world's energy needs. Shall we live in the dark because energy is too risky to harvest? Of course not. We must accept risks to live the way we want to, and we do. With respect to nuclear: yes, we've had some bad accidents, but most importantly, we understand why past disasters happened, and newer plants have strategies to address those risks. Nuclear power is a reasonably safe technology that has been unfairly maligned.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 10:36 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:53, 08 Dec 2014.
|
Corribus said:
Why would you do anything? Should we do something about the Loch Ness monster, too?
Okay, let me quote you again with a different emphasis:
Quote:
Some organizations have classified low frequency radiation as potentially carcinogenic, but you shouldn't rush to over-interpret that. What it means is that more studies need to be done, and that's probably true.
Where as Loch Ness monster is an irrational myth and has no possibility to turn out to be true, here, some organizations such as the WHO feel the need to point out it can indeed turn out to be harmful. I am not talking about abandoning the technology but what is wrong with having precautions such as using it with earphones if you're on the phone all the time or not buying a house too close to a base station, when they cost you nothing.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 11:38 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:28, 09 Dec 2014.
|
After giving it some thought, I came to the conclusion that there are three important parameters on this subject. We should have an idea about these, at least approximately:
1- The level of risk: When they say possibility, are they talking about some astronomical figure like 0.00005 percent or is it more like 4 percent? Is it just a big if or is there logical reasons to assume something more.
2- The magnitude of risk: If microwaves are indeed harmful, how harmful they are? Are we talking about an increase in number of cancer victims by 0.0004 percent, are we talking about cancer cases going triple the amount or is it something much more drastic that affects masses.
3- If precautions are decided, what will we be giving up? Are we talking about giving up on cell phone technology completely? (Not likely.) Are we talking about improving and modifying the technology according to some health standards, even if it means more expensive technology and less profit, are we talking about limiting its daily use? In short, what is the alternative?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2014 11:57 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:22, 09 Dec 2014.
|
@Valeriy
Pardon the quoting style, but it is easier in order to respond to the varied aspects of your post:
Quote:
The government safety standards for microwave radiation exposure are based on the assumption that microwave radiation only has thermal effects - in other words that it can only hurt a human by heating him/her like in a microwave oven.
Rightly so, because there is at present only a scientific consensus on heating effects of microwave radiation.
Quote:
The government has a vested financial interest in maintaining this position as it leases parts of the radiofrequency spectrum to the telecommunication companies for very large sums of money. Plus it gets to tax what is now one of the world's largest industries.
I don't buy this. Conspiracy theories, no matter how plausible they seem, are not helpful. Does stuff like this (in general) affect the way laws or regulations are written? Probably, though likely in subtle ways. That said, if there was a clear and indisputable body of scientific evidence that showed a technology to be harmful to public health, no amount of government "vested financial interest" would protect that technology from regulation. Even if court challenges failed, the media spheres we have today would prevent it.
In short, radiofrequency technology isn't unregulated because government stands to lose (money) via regulation. It is unregulated because there is no generally accepted scientific evidence to support regulation.
Quote:
If you look through the list of studies in the bioinitiative report you will see that hundreds of studies show effects at exposure levels that are far below thermal (non-thermal effects).
Having scrolled through them very fast, I notice a few general things.
1. A truly balanced list would include articles that have found no effect, of which they are many. This shows that you (or your preferred sources) are approaching the problem having already made a conclusion about what the answer is, and are only letting information through your filter that supports this preconception. This is not how scientific regulatory decisions are supposed to be made.
2. I didn't bother to count, but a large portion of those studies are not done on humans. They also are all over the place with respect to scope, so it's not clear what the accumulated list is supposed to show. (Also, a great deal of them do focus on thermal effects, contrary to what you've claimed above.) Getting to the point: accumulating a giant list of every publication that (selectively) supports your (predetermined) viewpoint is again not the proper way to make a scientific assessment of a complex body of literature. A proper meta-analysis looks at every study, examines its strengths and weaknesses, determines its relevance to the central problem, and compares it to every other study so examined. Most importantly, this is ideally done in a quantitative, or statistical, way. Once this is done, this information is passed on to risk managers that have the proper training to determine what the real risks of using the technology would be, and, if the technology is deemed to be too risky, what are the proper mitigation strategies to bring that risk to an acceptable level.
I mean, let's say 95% of those studies were carried out on rats. If rats aren't a suitable animal model for assessing the effects of nonionizing radiation on humans, that those 95% of studies aren't worth the paper they're printed on... unless you're trying to restrict cell phone usage among rats. So what you need are studies that evaluate what animal models are suitable to use. Have you looked into this issue? If you haven't, how can you possible make a determination on the value of this body of research?
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that while we have some studies showing that cellphone and wi-fi radiation poses a health risk, some other studies show no health risk and overall the evidence is insufficient to be 100% certain. Therefore it is wrong to proceed with caution and OK to expose the entire population to exponentially increasing levels of microwave radiation.
I'm saying two things.
One: I'm saying that scientific studies don't make conclusions about risk. This is a common misperception by nonscientists. Scientific studies report findings. If they are good studies*, they report findings that can be used, by experts who know how to discriminate between good studies and bad studies, to make specific conclusions about causal relationships... or at least irrefutable correlations. These experts look at all the facts from all the good studies and try to assess what the quantitative risks are. Even if we're generous and say that 50% of available studies establish that there is a real deleterious health effect of cell phone use, that leaves 50% of studies that show no effect whatsoever. We do not discard the 50% that found nothing and say that "the average study shows risk, therefore there's risk". That's again not how science works. "Finding nothing" is not a score of zero on some scale. We don't take an average. Finding nothing is a real finding. If half of studies find no effect and half do, then scientists need to understand why. That way we know if it is the studies that found effects are more relevant to assessing risk, or if it is the studies that found nothing that more relevant. This way, I need point out, we can effect strategies that minimize the risky parts of a technology while still allowing society to enjoy the benefits. (Like, maybe there's a device you can put on a cell phone that still enables functionality but blocks the harmful effects - this is only possible if we understand what exactly the mechanism is for harm.) Obviously, this all is not a simple process.
Two: I am saying there is no legal basis for the government to impose boundaries against technologies that have not been shown to be harmful. This is a philosophical argument as much as anything, so it's really not worth arguing about. Some people believe that the default state should be forbiddenness, moving forward only when a technology has been proven to be safe. Other people believe that the default state should be allowedness, halting progress only when a technology has been proven to be harmful. Actually, most people fall on a spectrum of in-betweenness.
To be absolutely clear, if evidence against nonionizing radiation suddenly presented itself, I'd be right with you about at least discussing enforcing regulation against its use (though, ultimately, I wouldn't necessarily come down on your side). But I don't see there is reason to even come to the table until there is an answer to the scientific question. Making a decision without the scientific answers is just a matter of whose opinion is shouted loudest - and who wants a government that works like that?
Quote:
"Reckless" precautionism?? Seriously?
Yeah, I liked it, too. 
Quote:
All of the technologies that you've listed are actually dangerous, and yet are thriving. I'm seriously bothered by your insistence that we should experiment on the entire human population until it is proved beyond a speck of doubt that something is harmful. The problem with this mentality, regardless of which technology you apply it to, is that you're always going to be left with enormous health repercussions whenever you get it wrong. In case of DNA damage, it may be irreparable/
Whoa, friend. Nuclear power you might have ground for argument, but seriously. Vaccinations, dangerous? Water fluoridation, dangerous? I mean, the latter alone has been called by CDC to be one of the most successful health initiatives of the 20th century. Being honest, I find it unlikely we're going to find common ground in this discussion based on this one comment.
Yes, we can agree tobacco is a serious risk to one's health, but what's the point in quoting the tobacco industry about it? Besides, the difference here is that once we started seriously looking**, the health risks of tobacco became immediately apparently. We've been looking at nonionizing radiation for 20+ years, and still have yet to identify a clear and indisputable link between nonionizing radiation and any deleterious health effect.
*And what's a good study?....
**Like some of the other "hindsight technologies" you mentioned, tobacco enjoyed popularity long before the modern disease science (and other pertinent sciences, toxicology, epidemiology, etc.) were developed. Tobacco, X-rays, uranium tiles, chlorofluorocarbons, lead in paint, and so on, came about before it was customary to evaluate the health impact of technologies - indeed, before we even had the tools to do so. Once we began to evaluate the health risks of such technologies using modern approaches, the health risks became very quickly evident, and regulations were quickly enacted. This is a fully logical process - a technology is developed, we evaluate it, if health risks are evident then we restrict its use. The 1950s were a very different time, scientifically and sociologically, than today. Hell, the 1980s are too. Using examples like this to defend Reckless Precautionism (and I'll use it again if I get the chance!) is unfair on many levels. Yeah, the tobacco industry kept its fingers in its ears long after it was clear to everyone that cigarettes were harmful. Drawing parallels to the cell phone industry at this point seems a little premature IMO.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
