Actually, there is quite a bit of "conclusive" evidence of health and safety
problems (and the UK seems inclined to follow the
US approach of ignoring concerns and evidence). Unfortunately, it rarely gets
coverage in the corporate news and, if it does, is
slanted to the "absolute proof" standard, which is problematic and very
misleading, at best, in providing cover for corporations'
profits over public health. A far better standard is that of the precautionary
principle, which requires proof that something is
NOT harmful and, w/o such, the use of preventive precaution, until a standard
is established.
The right wing US Chamber of Commerce has fought tooth and nail against
establishment of the precautionary principle in
product manufacturing and public and worker health/safety on "cost"
grounds--that is, cost to industry and profits, while
ignoring costs to health, safety and environment.
H&S information is available in forums on research, public health, and health
and safety fields/web sites, but requires folks in
technology fields (and end users) to seek it out. Quite frankly, in my
experience, putting the information directly under the
noses of many still results in avoidance, denial and what's known as "magical
thinking" ("I smoke, other people die").
Equally unfortunate is the unwillingness of the tech fields and tech users to
inform themselves and others regarding the health
and safety consequences of technology. IMO, a great deal of resistance may be
put down to "tech macho", poor design
standards and good old-fashioned willful ignorance--behaviors all encouraged by
not only the tenets of consumer capitalism, but
what Siegfried Kracauer called the "distraction industries"--to which
computers, the internet and the web are major
contributors, making it a sub rosa imperative to avoid directly addressing
health and safety issues, from personal injury to
environmental destruction. Technology is not created and does not exist in a
vacuum. Context is essential to understanding
process and end results. Hence, history, social and economic imperatives,
politics are necessary to understanding WHY health
and safety is subsumed in application of new technologies.
Few engineers or Comp Sci/Tech designers are required to take basic design
courses, much less anatomy/physiology (w/an eye
to design for humans). Hell's bells, they don't even take typography courses in
web design. Is it any wonder we get "worst
possible outcome" for fastest implemenation/profits as a "model"?
Consider that repetitive strain injuries are the largest (and fastest growing)
occupational injury, yet when was the last time the
topic was represented (much less accurately) in media? It has disappeared under
Bush (who overturned a decade-long battle to
get OSHA to instute an ergonomics standard, by fiat). The dangers of wireless
are following the same trajectory; unless action
is taken to change direction, the consequences may be well foreseen, including
astroturf groups by industry and denial (not to
mention "who knew?!?" when the damage reaches critical mass).
As far as children are concerned, it's also useful to remember that children do
not vote, pay taxes, have any power and are
treated not only as unimportant but, quite frequently, as experimental lab
rats. Any time some politician or public official starts
intoning about "the safety of our children", I see red warning flags go
up--it's usually for PR purposes, not genuine concern
about child--or adult--health/safety. In fact, children may be viewed as the
canary in the coal mine--if it's bad for them, it's
bad for the rest of us; they are affected first because they are smaller and
have still developing systems.
The NYC public school system is still putting computers (where they have them)
on cafeteria tables while kids sit on metal
folding chairs, in awkward, injury creating setups sized for adults, despite
full awareness of dangers (but, hey, it's cheap!); why
would they care about add'l enviro hazards. They just want to be able to say
"we're wired"...
"If we do not change our direction, we are likely to end up where we are
headed."
--Chinese proverb
Changing direction requires EVERYONE to start demanding not only accurate
information coverage from corporate media, but
from industry and media which reports on technology, both to the public and to
those in the fields which develop and use such
technologies.
trina
>I wondered at the recent Broadband Public Hearing, which was thoroughly
>wireless gung-ho, if someone was going to raise the
health issue. My brother in the UK tells me that many suspect that cellphones
will be seen as the 'cigarettes of the 21st
century', and should, at least, be kept away from children. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/744309.stm
Wi-Fi installation in schools has been questioned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6670000/newsid_6675500/
6675519.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm
While there is no actual conclusive evidence, there could well be public scares
which might lead to
parents keeping their kids out of wi-fi'd schools..
joly
At 12:40 PM 6/1/2007, you wrote:
>Sounds like wishful thinking. Nor does it address many of the problems of
>mobile phones--cancer, for example, not just from
the telephones themselves, but health consequences from towers.
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.isoc-ny.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
