[ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

NOTE: There are two "Mike"s involved in this thread, and we do not
presume to speak for each other.

I am not sure if ALL of the costs and ALL of the revenues to all parts
of government were tallied that it would show that Big Brother makes
money from cigarettes, but that is neither here nor there.  I would be
against banning cigarettes for the same reason I would be against
reinstating Prohibition: the evidence is strong that it won't work, and
the costs of trying to make it work would exceed the benefits likely to
accrue.  

I would respond to your choices thusly:

(A) I abhor using "bogus science", though I acknowledge that sometimes
it is necessary or desirable to act on less than perfect knowledge.  I
would like to see required classes on logic throughout the education
process, combined with education on science, the history of science, and
public health, as most people lack even the basics on these, and it
shows in their decision making.  I think people should make their own
decisions on many things, but I would like to see more of those
decisions informed.  

(B)  I have no problem with ticketing, fines, and arrest to modify
unsafe, or even anti-social behavior.  I don't care if the behavior is
cell phone use, aggressive driving, throwing burning material from a
vehicle, or display of firearms: all I ask is that the proposed
punishment be strong enough encourage better behavior, yet not excessive
(only rarely, for example, is summary execution for tailgating
appropriate.)

(C)  I don't have a problem with you deciding how risky you want to live
your life, provided that your exercise of that freedom does not infringe
on other people's ability to decide for themselves.  If the outcome of
your decision is likely to be a multi-car accident with people who
didn't want to be in an accident today, then you have a responsibility
to limit the risks you take.  All freedom is paid for with a
corresponding responsibility, else the system fails.  It is the
obligation of responsible adults to exercise enough responsibility to
cover all the freedom they consume, plus enough to cover their share of
the freedoms consumed by those who cannot exercise full responsibilities
(such as children). 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:24 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones

MRI technologists ARE some of the nicest people you will meet.

Mike's argument seems to be the same as his take on global warming.
Even if we don't 
know if EMF produces health effects, we should not rock the science boat
because it will be 
good for people to use cell phones less.  I think if we really want
people to be healthier, and 
we don't care too much about the freedom of the individual, we should
outlaw smoking.  
Hands down, that would have a more significant impact on human health
than either 
increased pollution control or cell phone usage reductions, not even
counting the accidents 
that occur when folks try to fish out a smoke and light up while
driving.   But Big Brother 
makes way too much money from cigarette taxes, so I won't hold my breath
for that 
legislation.  

Personally, I don't see much of a moral difference between outright
violation of individual 
freedoms, and nudging the population toward desired goals by scaring
them with bogus 
science.  Both are reprehensible.

I wonder what which choice people would make, when asked about the
dangers of cell phone 
use?

    A) I want the government to modify my cell phone usage with scary
bogus science, 
    reinforced by Hollywood propaganda aimed at impressionable young
people.  

    B) I want the government to modify my cell phone usage by police
actions like 
    ticketing, fining, or arresting those who deviate from approved
behaviors.

    C) I can decide for myself how risky my life should be, and I'll
thank you not to lie 
    about what the science says or how confident we are of the
conclusions.

-Gary Isenhower