4 ms·
Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing process to bett
by makmanalp 13y ago
Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing process to better inform them.
Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense?
Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
- jotm 13y agoI believe the comparison you're looking for is radium - people used it for quite a long time, not knowing the long term effects. Heroin works, too - smoking doesn't because people have been smoking stuff for thousands of years...
- mburns 13y agoLead-based paint is another example.
- AsymetricCom 13y agoI'm not certain your example of Tobacco is a success. My point stands, that Cell phones are needed by the economy so we'll have cellphones. Tobacco sales were needed by the economy and now they're not. Also, your idea that Tobacco fell out of market acceptance because of the health risks, widespread campaigns is wrong.
- makmanalp 13y agohttp://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig... -> If that's not a success, I don't know what is. Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold. Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-are-at-new-lows/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a... This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
- AsymetricCom 13y agoI never said taxing and banning wouldn't work. What I said is that taxing and banning will never happen because of health impact. It won't change until the health impact has a significant economic impact.