Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Court Rules Mobile Phones Cause Cancer

(1/3) > >>

Renegade:
Well, it's not like the rumors haven't been around for a while, but this time the mobile phone cancer thing is coming out of a court:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9619514/Mobile-phones-can-cause-brain-tumours-court-rules..html

Innocente Marcolini, 60, an Italian businessman, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.

Now Italy's Supreme Court in Rome has blamed his phone saying there is a "causal link" between his illness and phone use, the Sun has reported.
--- End quote ---

IainB:
Who'd a thunk it? Carcinogenic, eh? Well, if it comes from Italy's Supreme Court, then I guess it might prove...something...
Me, I'd have preferred we had stayed with the North American Indian system of smoke signals, but they were apparently banned for being carcinogenic too.

Deozaan:
My question is: Why is a court deciding this? Shouldn't something like this be left up to science, rather than law? :huh:

IainB:
My question is: Why is a court deciding this? Shouldn't something like this be left up to science, rather than law? :huh:
-Deozaan (October 20, 2012, 03:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, no, not necessarily.
It is possible that the bias is so heavy on either side of the argument, and the stakes so $high, that the associated so-called "scienctific research" cannot be trusted - e.g., you might never know for sure whether the researchers had been bought off or paid to arrive at a "proof" to a preferred hypothesis.
Under such circumstances, it might seem better to let the issues be properly adjudged in a court of law, and what better standard bearer for objectivity than Italy's Supreme Court in Rome? Italy being known worldwide for things such as, for example, it's impeccable laws, incorruptible judges, negligible corruption in society, low crime rate, and scientific and judicial due process?
For example, it was via an Italianate court that, in July 1633, the final interrogation of Galileo Galilei at the hands of the Inquisition ended with a banishment sentence and him being forced to recant his heretical theory that the Earth moved around the Sun...Oh, but wait...

Renegade:
My question is: Why is a court deciding this? Shouldn't something like this be left up to science, rather than law? :huh:
-Deozaan (October 20, 2012, 03:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, no, not necessarily.
It is possible that the bias is so heavy on either side of the argument, and the stakes so $high, that the associated so-called "scienctific research" cannot be trusted - e.g., you might never know for sure whether the researchers had been bought off or paid to arrive at a "proof" to a preferred hypothesis.
Under such circumstances, it might seem better to let the issues be properly adjudged in a court of law, and what better standard bearer for objectivity than Italy's Supreme Court in Rome? Italy being known worldwide for things such as, for example, it's impeccable laws, incorruptible judges, negligible corruption in society, low crime rate, and scientific and judicial due process?
For example, it was via an Italianate court that, in July 1633, the final interrogation of Galileo Galilei at the hands of the Inquisition ended with a banishment sentence and him being forced to recant his heretical theory that the Earth moved around the Sun...Oh, but wait...
-IainB (October 20, 2012, 04:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

Hahahahaha~! ;D

And down the rabbit hole we go...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page