Subject: Dr. Goldsmith's standpoints (fwd)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 063442 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:40:34 +0200
From: "D. S. Cvijovic"
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Dr. Goldsmith's standpoints
Dear Mr. Beavers,
I must say I am not sure how the messages are posted to your (new) list, so
I am replying to your address, and you would decide whether to post my
comment of below:
I react to the correspondence innitiated by Dr. Goldsmith. I appreciate his
particular view on the matter, but the problem is that it remains one of
the individual views... And who cares for the whole? What about the
responsibility?
To illustrate, let me add some reflections, inspired by latest Dr.
Goldsmith's reply (cited at the bottom):
As it seems to be admitid by Dr. Goldsmith in his latest message,
authorities/scientific community have failed to warn about the danger of
the cellular phone handsets. So, for about ten years people have been using
those tumor promoters, and is now anybody guilty for that? Well,
authorities/scientists now admit there might have been made a mistake in
designing those handsets, but the mistake would be corrected by designing
the new ones. Does anybody feel guilty or at least regrets for it hasn't
been done before? No!
What a happy ending! For those who will use the new handsets. If the new
handsets are not also harmfull (by non thermal, longer time effects).
!!!We have to point out here that if nothing is to be changed in the
complete attitude to safety, we can expect that each invention could cost
the human race several thousand of sick people (but it should be considered
the price of progress)!!!
And here we come to the very foundation of this issue, to my oppinion:
We deffinitely have to sacrifice something once in while, for the sake of
common good.
***But the questionable is the ratio (probability of affliction)/(expected
effect), or "cost effectiveness". As it seems to be going on now, we are
sacrificing our health for the sake of future robots who would live in a
very progressed world :-).
Who is entitled to decide what ratio is appropriate?
If, for example, we would agree that cellular phone towers (according to
temporary - INCOMPLETE - knowledge) are posing health hazard to 50% of
urban population, by chance of 30% (more likely that they are harmless, but
there is a very significant chance that they are not), WHAT POTENTIAL
BENEFIT FROM SUCH DEVICES HAS TO BE, SO TO COUNTERWEIGHT THE POTENTIAL
RISK!?
For example, people do work in hazardous conditions, but just for a lot of
money, and they decide on their own whether is the ratio risk/pay
appropriate. Here we have a situation that we seem to be trusting the
authorities to do the estimations instead of us, and they keep making
deccidions that prove us they estimate progress is so precious. What
progress do we, meanwhile, see, in fact!!??
So, what I suggest, is that scientists should be honest, and let us know
the estimated probability of potential risks, as they are not able to give
final answers. At least their estimations of probability. As long as they
give estimations of the binary type "it is safe", or "it is not safe", we
would be in a position to consider safe the devices that are dangerous by
probability of, say, 30%... And when the cancer is in question, even 0.3%
probability that there would be a correlation, has to be counterwighted by
much "progress"...
All such deccidions are GAMBLING. Life is gambling, as well. Honest
scientists can help us know what probabilities are in game. That might
change a lot. But, unfortunately, making estimations of (non causal)
probability "is not scientific", it is subjective. (The only way is that
some of them speak of his private estimation, but he would risk loosing his
position...) So, the deccidions are left to politicians/industry who
sometimes don't even (want to) know all the aspects and to consider the
probabilities... You know, both politics and industry are working on binary
principle: who has 51%, he wins, regardless of the rest! In that manner
present probability that EMFs are dangerous means to them just a threat
that it might become 51% one day! When it reaches critical percentage, they
would just say "OK, you win, so we have to replace the devices"...
I could write more, but it is already long...
My question to Dr. Goldsmith: Do you see anything wrong with the present
practice in safety regulation?
Best regards,
Drasko Cvijovic
PECINA@EUnet.yu
Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia
================
================
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:40:10 +0200 (IST)
From: John Goldsmith
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: NBC TV News, "The Fleecing of America" also "The Brits don't ,
understand" (fwd)
Stewart:
I like and have no disagreement with your comments. You were more
patient than I. I especially appreciate your comments on the "sound the
alarm" issue. I think that I have become convinced from the evidence that
the cellphone risk is real and substantial, but not directly proven. This
is largely on the basis of the measured levels of head and neck radiation
from various phone configurations. These levels can easily be reduced by
better designed equipment. This latter point makes it ethical in my view
to create a modicum of public concern, so that the public can show its
preference for certified safer equipment in the marketplace.
Warm regards, John Goldsmith
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html