Subject: (Philips) (Weiner) A crack in the dam? (fwd)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 043955 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:01:49
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: Stewart Fist
Subject: Re: (Weiner) A crack in the dam? (fwd)
I don't really agree with Stewart. If they are just acting on
the precauationary principle and not trying to steal a lead and
make money from it why apply for the Patent and specificy adverse
health effects in it? Surely quietly just improving the phone design
is enough and telling the public what they are doing would be enough.
If they are really "responding to public fears" it would be more
appropriate to TELL the public what they are doing and to publish a
comparison table showing which phones put 80% into the users heads
and which phones put only 20 of their power into the users heads.
This would be far more appropriate way to 'respond to public concern'
than file Patents (over 5 years ago!!!!!) specifying they now how to
reduce emissions but then not applying the technology to their
products nor telling the public that is what they are doing. How
can you claim that when they keep their actions under cover?
Sorry, Stewart, I do see the point you are making but if that really
is what they are doing then they need new strategic management! If
they had told the world a few years ago that was what they were doing
then I would support your position. As it is they are still denying
that there is any suggestions of any real problems with curent phones.
Alasdair
At 19:29 27/10/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>.......Stewart is making the point below that industry's ACTIONS
>do not implicate them when they behave as if EMF "might" be harmful.
>.......His notion that possible "liability" is the basis for industry
>taking the kind of 'defensive' measures that their lawyers would
>probably have recommended ... is valid......However, I don't think that
>deals with the other aspect which is also valid -- actions can speak
>louder than words!
>
>When industry's BEHAVIOR contradicts what they are SAYING (that EMF is
>harmless), their behavior should be presented to the jury.....
>I believe that most juries would consider their actions as implicating
>them in a duplicity......i.e., That maybe what they are SAYING is not
>what they truly believe)......This issue has come up in the tobacco cases
>in the U.S......The tobacco companies do NOT seem to be winning the point
>when they deny their inconsistency.......guru.....(Hear from some
>lawyers on this???)
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:40:56 +1100
>From: Stewart Fist
>To: "Roy L. Beavers"
>Subject: Re: (Weiner) A crack in the dam? (fwd)
>
>The story in the London Independent claiming that by patenting devices aimed
>at reducing exposure, cellphone manufacturers are 'admitting' liability, is
>pure rubbish.
>
>All they need to be doing is reacting to "perceived fears in the public".
>
>Activists can't promote the idea that standards should be set on
>'precautionary principles' (ie based on less than scientifically accepted
>proof) and then also claim that any company that acts in this precautionary
>way is thereby admitting liability.
>
>If we accept the precautionary principle, then we should be encouraging
>companies to take these exposure-reduction positions -- not using such
actions
>against them.
>
>
>--
>Stewart Fist - writer and columnist
>See http://www.newsit.com.au/index_opinion.htm
> http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives)
> http://www.electric-words.com (main archives)
>70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia
>Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
Director, UK Powerwatch,
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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