phones: Is there an epidemic on hold?

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
phones: Is there an epidemic on hold?

'During the leisurely course of the research and reporting, the number of mobile users worldwide has doubled to four billion. Their ubiquity, especially among the young, means that if handsets do cause cancer, we could yet see an epidemic – one that this botched, biased and belated study will have done little to prevent'.

Yes, with the staggering level of usage, there only needs to be very small frequency rate of disease for it to emerge as a major public health issue.

But of course, as many over on the legal-age-of-smoking thread have alluded, we should certainly not legislate to restrict/eliminate usage, irrespective of the harm caused. After all, people are only giving themselves cancer. It is therefore none of our business and we have no justification in reducing their civil liberties .

Perhaps we should ban internal combustion powered road transport? There is massive polution and resulting health iussues from this, but it will not happen of course. And I would not wish to see it happen, even though I hardly use a car at all, and could easily do entirely without ...

ATB from George

How many people use their mobile device as a phone, held to their head? They seem to be mainly used for texting, emailing and surfing. And after a rare hour of using mine as a phone, I don't think my head is any warmer than it will be after an hour outside in the garden today.

Tony

Oh dear.

In a forum where we inevitably remind people to go listen for themselves I always feel disappointed when the same thinking isn't applied to... thinking.

This, for goodness sake, was an article in the Daily Telegraph. It is a paper whose approach to science is marginally more level headed or informed than the Daily Mail, but not much.

If you want to comment in the study or know more about the study why not use the power at your fingertips to read it rather than rely on second I'll informed tat. This is precisely the level of inane debate that leafs people to the conclusion that a smoking ban that is entirely justified by the science is somehow an infringement of their civil liberties and their rights as a member of the human race.

A quick read of the likes of AC Grayling may explain the real nature of human rights whilst a quick read of Ben Goldacre might explain what science is and how the media abuse it.

The concept that cancer does no harm to others is laughable and, assuming it was meant in jest, nevertheless offensive. A mobile phone ban will never happen, however, the nature of how they work may need to change. That however is a matter for science and science is not full of miracle cures. It is methodical, open and painstaking. It is rarely found in the pages of newspapers.

Totally OT but:

quote:

Welsh exile in English hell

Any reason why you can't go back home?

quote:

In a forum where we inevitably remind people to go listen for themselves I always feel disappointed when the same thinking isn't applied to... thinking.

As long as that thinking for yourself doesn't extend to making decisions regarding whether or not to smoke?

quote:

... a smoking ban that is entirely justified by the science is somehow an infringement of their civil liberties

Science itself is dispassionately objective - it cannot justify. As I'm sure you well know, it is people with subjective agendas who seek to use scientific argument to justify their beliefs (and impose them on others).

To deny that banning smoking infringes an individuals civil liberties is blatantly wrong. We can debate the extent to which this is an infringment and to what extent it may be justified but an infringement it clearly is.

A breath of fresh air indeed.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:
To deny that banning smoking infringes an individuals civil liberties is blatantly wrong. We can debate the extent to which this is an infringment and to what extent it may be justified but an infringement it clearly is.

And here's a breath of putrid, toxic, disgusting air....

To deny that smoking infringes on my civil liberties by forcing me to fund the health care of persons suffering from preventable disease, and some cases, to force me to watch friends and loved ones die from those dieases is also blatantly wrong.

But life is full of things you would not have others do; and things that others would not have you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
But life is full of things you would not have others do; and things that others would not have you do.

Could not agree more. Sometimes we ignore those wishes, and sometimes we take them into account. For example, my motorcycling "career" is at an end out of respect for a wish by my beloved wife. I do not feel as if she has infringed upon my civil liberties in the slightest.

People who smoke seem to have little respect for the wishes and rights of others, especially the wishes and rights of those that are closest to them.

Dear winki,

You saint for falling in with your wife's wish. Of course you had the free choice and you made it. That is the point. I think motorbikes could quite easily be banned, with the most powerful machines being 50 cc pedal assisted jobs, but I would never seek to enforce this. It is biker's choice to ride or not, for any number of reasons. You have chosen not to. Yes you are showing saintly qualities.

But you spoil it in the second line with gross and inaccurate generalisations about smokers. Please don’t forget that I enjoy a smoke, and so I know that I also show saintly qualities when appropriate.

And it a free choice to do so or not.

I could get into the idea of not treating this patient or that on the basis of lifestyle choices possibly inducing their illnesses. As a light and physically fit man, who rides a bicycle, and in spite of eating well is not carrying an ounce of lard, perhaps I should be offended at people who are not fit - obese even - who develop heart disease, diabetes, hip and knee failures ...

And it is treated for years at the general taxpayers' expense. Should I petition for these people to not be treated and/or banned from eating more food than they require to maintain a healthy body-weight? Compulsory stomach size-limitation, called "stapling," perhaps, before any other treatment is administered?

In my view of course not.

But we are different - you and me - I know what is best for me, and you think you know what is best for me and many like me. I disagree that you do.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear winki,

You saint for falling in with your wife's wish. Of course you had the free choice and you made it. That is the point. I think motorbikes could quite easily be banned, with the most powerful machines being 50 cc pedal assisted jobs, but I would never seek to enforce this. It is biker's choice to ride or not, for any number of reasons. You have chosen not to. Yes you are showing saintly qualities.

But you spoil it in the second line with gross and inaccurate generalisations about smokers. Please don’t forget that I enjoy a smoke, and so I know that I also show saintly qualities when appropriate.

And it a free choice to do so or not.

I could get into the idea of not treating this patient or that on the basis of lifestyle choices possibly inducing their illnesses. As a light and physically fit man, who rides a bicycle, and in spite of eating well is not carrying an ounce of lard, perhaps I should be offended at people who are not fit - obese even - who develop heart disease diabetes ....

And it is treated for years at the general taxpayers' expense. Should I petition for these people to not be treated or banned from eating more food than they require to maintain a healthy body-weight?

In my view of course not.

But we are different - you and me - I know what is best for me, and you think you know what is best for. I disagree that you do.

ATB from George

I would not claim to know what is best for you personally. What I do know is that you are doing yourself physical harm by smoking.

My decison to curtail my activities in order to improve the overall welfare (my wife is happier that I do not ride) is analagous to society making a decision to curtail other activities to maximise overall welfare. I'm less happy that I can't by that Ducati 1198 that I lust after, but derive vicarious happiness from knowing that, as a team, my wife and I are better off. Her desire for me not to ride outweighs my desire to ride.

We thankfully live in a democracy and any legislation to restrict or ban smoking is therefore a choice by society. We, as a society already agree to compromises and controls in many areas. I'm just proposing just one more. It isn't the end of freedom as we know it, surely.

The bit I don't get is how an individual can choose to harm themselves, and those who love him/her for the singular and selfish pleasure of sucking on a fag. I really, really don't get it. My mother gave up smoking way back before there was anywhere near this much information (and pressure to do so). She did so out of respect for the welfare of herself, my dad, my sister and me. Not only did she not want us to be exposed to secondhand smoke, but she did not want to die on us. I respect her greatly for this.

My decison to curtail my activities in order to improve the overall welfare (my wife is happier that I do not ride) is analagous to society making a decision to curtail other activities to maximise overall welfare.

It is not analogous at all, because the difference is between free choice, and compulsion. I am surprised you can see an analogy. After all if you and your wife are separated, you may even feel free to change your mind and ride a motorbike ...

The bit I don't get is how an individual can choose to harm themselves, and those who love him/her for the singular and selfish pleasure of sucking on a fag.

And that is a significant point! It is a free choice and for each to make for ourselves, and right enough. Because you don't understand something does not mean that you should play God with others' freedom of choice.

If you feel so strongly that this or that activity is something you would want others to do less of, then use your persuasive talents to educate and cajole them to your view. That is the free way.
_________

For example, if I died [for whatever reason] tomorrow, apart from some very good friends, I know that no person would be adversely affected, beyond a certain sadness of heart - humans tend get over that very quickly.

I have eliminated family responsibility, by abstaining from adding to the unsustainable humaan population grouth. A big and "free" decision. I doubt if it will made illegal [outside China] to over-populate the world, but it is going on ...

I started to smoke at 35, and my present to myself on that day was a nice pipe. I reckon that it probably takes thirty odd years to kill me if I happened to be unlucky. By 65, no one could possibly upset by my leaving. It might kill me sooner. So what? A bus might run me over biking to work tomorrow. Life is a question of,"There but for the Grace of God," in reality! No one should assume that anything they do would lengthen their life. It is sensible in life to do [in moderation] things one enjoys doing. One cannot live life entirely round others, but certainly one should be aware of them and careful of them. I never smoke in a non-smoker's house, but with a smoker will ask what the house rules are! It is really easy to get right according to my standard, applied to myself. That other people have different standards is no reason for me to judge them. That some people have different standards is no reason for you to judge them. You may not like them, but learn the humility to remember that you are no more than me or anyone else. Just grains of sand on the seashore of the world's population, to be washed over by the waves of life in which we are entirely in the power of.

You have few enough choices already without me seeking to reduce them for you.

Have the same respect for choces of others please.

ATB from George

And I still don't get it. You have completely failed to convince me that banning smoking would have anything other than a positive effect. It would not be the end of freedom as we know it. You haven't presented any evidence to suggest otherwise. All you have effectively said is that you would somehow resent it on this basis.

I reason that I object to smoking because is not because I don't like smoking myself. I object because it is harmful and costly to may people. It reduces the lifespan of the average smoker by 12 years. There are few other common activities (and certainly none as pointless as smoking) that have this effect.

As I live in a democratic society, there is little else I can do than discuss this and to vote. (I guess I could run for parliament). I don't seek to impose my will, other than by those means. I am not proposing a revolution and do not plan to install myself as dictator.

You are quite right that I am not showing respect for the argument that banning smoking would be an unreasonable restriction of liberty. I find that notion ludicrous.

But please don't take this as an assault on your personal choices, George. In the case of an individual, whom I have never met, I have little basis question them.

Regards,

winky

quote:

As I live in a democratic society, there is little else I can do than discuss this and to vote. (I guess I could run for parliament). I don't seek to impose my will, other than by those means. I am not proposing a revolution and do not plan to install myself as dictator.

And in a free society we must as freedom lovers vote for those who will preserve freedoms ...

You admit you don't understand smokers and do not like them costing society as a whole money to treat them if they fall ill as a result[though they are not the only ones who do cost society as a whole, including those who survive long on state funded pensions], and because smoking is shown statistically to reduce average life expectancy [between 10 years to virtually none depending on how long and how heavily], you would see fit to remove the choice. Is there anything else you don't understand or wish to fund the cost consequences of through your taxation? Is smoking the first on a list, or your sole bugbear?

I have a list of many activities others engage in that cost me as a tax payer, but I would say, "Live life, and let others live life." But then I am not so self-centred as to presume to see others choices restricted because I personally don't understand or like their cost consequences ...

ATB from George

"To deny that banning smoking infringes an individuals civil liberties is blatantly wrong. We can debate the extent to which this is an infringment and to what extent it may be justified but an infringement it clearly is."

Er, do you actually know what a civil liberty is Svetty?

Mr. Lacey - yes, there are very specific reasons as to why not. They relate to my health; the public transport infrastructure and the lack of employment opportunities in my chosen profession. Hey, thanks for asking

Mike

PS: I'm beginning to wonder if Naim hsve been sneaking subliminal messages on their samplers or perhaps a free Daily Mail with every purchase. What else could explain such an outbreak of anti-enlightenment regressive clap trap?

quote:

Er, do you actually know what a civil liberty is Svetty?

Yes. Am I to infer that you choose to adopt a restrictive definition of 'Civil Liberties' to suit your purpose?

quote:

What else could explain such an outbreak of anti-enlightenment regressive clap trap?

Are you referring to George, myself, Mike L, or just anyone who disagrees with your brand of enlightened, progressive tyranny?

My father smoked cigarettes all his life until about 7 years ago.
Now he realises that this costly,stupid and disgusting habit rewarded him by forcing him to be
plugged on an oxygen tank 24/7.

Svetty,

Civil liberties are well enough defined as are Hunan rights. Under no definition I'm aware of do they include smoking!

Mike

PS The last poster makes an emotional point but let's follow it through. According to the arguments on this thread it's the posters right to do what he's done to himself as it affects no one else and it would be an unacceptable interferenc. In his private life to have prevented this.

Okay, now, let's factor in the emotional and physical distress to his family. Let's factor on the cost of that oxygen and the cost of the staff who provide it. Let's weigh it against those services that could not be provided for those who did not bring ill health upon themselves but must suffer because in a world of competing resources the losers are usually the most vulnerable. Let's factor in the cost of inhalation in his vicinity. Let's factor in the cost to the environment in terms of production, pollution, litter, smell. Let's factor in the dental costs.

Let's factor in that the right here, according to the amazing arguments on this thread, is for a smoker to do all this.

Your human rights and civil liberties have a cost. 77% of the uk populous tend toward the view that it is an excessive and wholly disproportionate cost and are backed by overwhelming evidence and thus democracy and not the "nanny state" did its work and arrived at a balanced conclusion and enacted a ban.