 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:54:50 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
--- mbabazi baguma william <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
I guess the "mobile phones and the cancer theory" if
true are to follow pretty much in the smoking and
lung cancer steps! Where "mobile phone" companies and
others may require "overt evidence." In otherwords
until we have such large cases of disease in realtion
to phones usage that there is no possibility left to
chance.
Esther
<HR>
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV><B><U>
<P align=justify>MOBILE PHONES: MUST WE AWAIT
EVIDENCE?</P>
<P></B></U></P>
<P align=justify>In this21<SUP>st</SUP> Century,
everyone is advocating for evidence-based practice in
all fields or areas. While this is right in most
cases, I think that sometimes we should adopt/ promote
measures to prevent any exposure to hazardous
substances like mobile phone radiation. Traditionally,
it is known that prevention is better than cure and
not long ago there was this thing called the
precautionary principle, all these seem to be on the
shelf when we discuss mobile phones and their
radiations. I argue that agents or substances or
products suspected of being hazardous and there is no
clear evidence should be subjected to control measures
on the "prudence principle of public health". In this
principle, inconvenience consequent to making an error
on the safety side is preferred than allowing for
possible harm to occur. I think that this is what our
grand fathers had in mind when they said that there is
no smoke without fire.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>Dear health promotion activists, I
appreciate the importance of evaluation of scientific
data. But we should not forget the importance of
community concerns as has been portrayed in the media
in the recent past. We should appreciate that news in
the media give little value to data and more often pay
attention to suffering individuals who beyond any
logic believe that they are suffering preventable
harm. My understanding is that using mobile phones is
an individual choice and certainly has economic
advantages, what do we lose when mobile phone
manufacturers are asked to put labels of the amount of
radiation in each phone? What harm do we do by
advising users to limit talk time on their mobile
phones? Cancer morbidity and mortality continues to
cause suffering to our loved ones, relatives, friends
and in-laws yet the various methods used to prevent it
have reached their diminishing returns. My conviction
is that action to limit carcinogenic hazards thought
to be!
!
associated with use of mobile phones is worth a
mention to the public. Unfortunately, I see a world
marred with moves and activities intended to cause
confusion and misunderstandings in whatever is being
done to establish the extent of hazards associated
with mobile phone use and overshadowing initiation of
measures to reduce the risk. I hope this does not
last. </P>
<P>William B. Mbabazi<BR><BR></P></DIV></div><br
clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer
at <a
href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
|
|
|
