"hysteria" is both a loaded word and inappropriate, paricularly given real problems associated w/radiation from cell phones, WiFi, etc. The danger is not in "public hysteria"--especially in the US--but denial based on political and economic interests at the expense of public health. A fundamental and correct approach is the Precautionary Principle in which one proceeds with caution when introducing potentially or possibly harmful products or systems, and the requirement that corporations (or whomever) prove that a product/system is NOT harmful, rather than requiring the concerned citizen or expert (researcher, public health MD, etc.) prove a standard of absolute proof of harm (not even a reasonable measure of harm). A standard, I assure you, which is difficult to establish either legally or empirically, w/o sufficient funding (usually withheld) or in a timely fashion. Decades of dead or maimed and/or profound environmental degradation result before action is taken. This provides years or decades of profiteering until the "body of evidence" (and the bodies) collect. Even then, industry fights health and safety standards tooth and nail, ignores and spurns outside research, while buying "positive" research. Cigarettes are an excellent example. Asbestos, another. Pthalates are yet another. The EU has ruled that pthalates must be removed from products (principally soaps and cosmetics, etc.) because they are proven carcinogens and cause birth defects. American based corporations are doing so, but refuse to do the same thing in the US w/o being forced to do so. Anitbacterial soap is still being sold despite documented environmental harm and serving no actual purpose other than an illusory claim of being more "effective" than nonbacterial soap. (what gets your hands clean is hot water and the slickness of any soap combined w/at least 20 seconds of thorough washing.)
To return to our own topic of technology, US manufacturers of VDTs refused to lower radiation levels until the Swedish Office Workers Union forced the issue, with resulting legislation. In that case, it was cheaper to manufacture to one standard, so the radiation went way down, benefitting us all. No US office worker's union could have pulled that off (I won't digress here into the politics of why). The infamous Australian "report" is perhaps my favorite example of the abuse of "hysteria" claims to deny public and occupational health concerns. This "report" determined that the epidemic of RSIs there were "actually" the result of "mass hysteria" and that RSIs (there known as OOSs) did not really exist. So much simpler--not to mention less expensive--to blame it on the crazy (i. e., hysterial) women imagining symptoms than to treat the injuries and correct the causes. This did not, of course, account for RSIs among electricians, construction workers, male computer workers or those in other manly pursuits or of manly persuasions. But it did seek to dismiss a large number of the injured. You will be (I hope) horrified to know that RSI deniers (including in the medical community) continue to reference and quote this "study" as somehow definitive. My concern is that the Broadband Advisory Committee (BAC) not engage in the politics of denial as usual, and simply claim it's "not a problem" or "we don't have any proof of this" or, the ever popular, "those H&S people are just hysterical" w/o using the precautionary principle. Worst of all of is the claim of "expertise" to override public health concerns. I remind all and sundry that the City of NY, in its infinite wisdom, is still creating dangerous conditions in schools and work places by refusing to include proper ergonomic design (and equipment and tables/chairs age appropriately sized for children) as part of the cost of putting computers in schools. They're still tossing computers on cafeteria tables and provide metal folding chairs to sit on. Busy building the next generation of crippled workers. Conditions for the city's workers generally? Also not so copacetic. The concern for health and safety is not at the top of the priority list for NYC, so far as I have been able to observe. Though I'd certainly be thrilled if the BAC made it a fundamental consideration. As I. F. Stone so eloquently stated whenever he spoke to journalism students: "If you don't remember anything else I tell you, remember this: governments lie." To that, I would add, corporations w/money to be made, lie in spades. When corporations and governments collude, it becomes dangerous, indeed. The price of safety, like freedom (I'm talking the real kind not the propaganda version) requires eternal vigilance. trina > It validates my point - that whether or not such concerns are borne > out - possible public hysteria over such is something the NYC > Broadband Advisory Committee will have to take into > consideration. > > joly > > At 07:50 AM 6/12/2007, you wrote: > >A followup to Joly's note about WiFi concerns in the UK (and I'm > guessing this won't turn up on the corporate news in the US any > >time soon): > > > >Worried families ditch their Wi-Fi after watchdog voices health > concerns > >By Geoffrey Lean and Alex Hanks > >http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2609317.ece _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.isoc-ny.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
