yojimboguy, if you don’t mind….

[CnoteChris]

Yeah this is a bit belated, but I don’t care.

In your now closed thread, Posers hooted off the board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=129641), you point out as an example of posters who are clueless, inept, or otherwise stupid, our previous exchange in the now defunct “Do cell phones really screw up hospital equipment?”

Specifically, you say…
Originally posted by yojimboguy
I have a favorite one of those (Referring to “…posted links to threads [where people] simply fail to understand the implications of the facts and statistics presented to them”). It absolutely BOGGLES my mind that CnoteChris thinks banning cell phone calls in hospitals is bogus. He posted several links in support of his position, of which the most favorable of them (to his position) stated that cell phones interfered with medical devices 5% of the time, a risk he called "vanishingly small".

Since the cell phone thread where the disagreement originally arose, and the thread where you now mention how “boggled" you are at my stance is closed too, about the only way I can counter your… ::it’s hard to tell what it is really, but it’s something, since you include it as an example of a dipstick poster:: is to address it here, in its own thread.

This isn’t a rip, a criticism, or anything like that, since to this day I don't think you grasp what it was I arguing about in that thread. This is more of a clarification thread where I get to point out what I was saying and why, any why because of that, I think your feeling that I was deluded-- both then and now- is not only wrong, it's flawed.

Put simply, my argument is that in their current form hospital policies regarding cell phone use are not only misguided and misleading, but they're downright silly when you look at the actual risks they pose to patients. Furthermore, any risk to patients that can directly be attributed to cell phone is infinitesimal at best, and isn't reason alone to enforce the policies (* By the way, where you got “vanishingly small” is beyond me, because I never said that. When you quote someone for the purpose of trying to show how stupid they are, it’d help if you at least got what they said right, dickweed).

It was a simple argument, and one I feel, and felt, strongly about in that thread. Since my view in that was the minority, and I was the most vocal of the opposing bunch, the burden of proving, or at least disproving the prevailing thought on the matter, fell on me.

No problem there—I provided cites, statistics, and people more knowledgeable in the area than I am who support the notion that the policies and signs are misleading (Or BS, in my terms). If that wasn’t good enough, I even provided a cite where it’s shown that the FCC itself has relaxed it’s stand on the matter, to the point that they neither condone nor advocate the policies.

If the most anal-retentive regulatory body in the US isn’t too concerned, than neither am I.

So I argued and argued away on the matter, providing cites, stats, and expert opinion on the matter whenever I could.

You, on the other hand, stuck to the notion that any threat to hospital equipment as the direct result of cell phone use was reason enough to enforce and continue the policy.

When that alone—you’re preconceived idea on the matter- wasn’t enough, you pull out an anecdote from your past, “I'm an AV technician in a hospital, and while I don't work with medical equipment, I've personally had experience with cell phones interfering with our wireless mike system in meeting rooms.” *Do cell phones really screw up hospital equipment (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125374&highlight=cell+AND+hospital)

Again, and as I said in the original thread, whoopdee fucking doo. You work in hospital and it once affected your mikes. How the hell does that relate to the topic of cell phones endangering patients, and the need for the policies? It doesn't. All it does is corroborate the fact that cell phones can cause electromagnetic disturbances.

And to that extent, so what? I didn't argue that they didn't. I argued that the justification for the hospitals polices and regulations that imply that they do, is erroneous, or as I put it then, BS.

The cites I provided back up that stance-- in laboratory experiments, tests have shown that "Of 33 medical devices tested, only 4 showed disruption of critical function due to cell phone emissions at a distance of 25 cm or greater. Although other cases of electromagnetic interference were observed, these were not critically disruptive and mainly occurred when the transmitters were at full power and placed 5 cm or closer to the medical device." Electronic Words.com (http://www.electric-words.com/cell/abstracts/mo161621.html)You’d have to be damn near on top of the most screwed up monitors for the equipment to malfunction. And even then, the severity of the malfunction is questionable (In terms of it being used as a reason to ban cell phones in hospitals).

Why that part of the argument you never address, or even counter by providing one cite, or one expert that says that the threat is real, is beyond me because it was my central point-—the threat doesn’t necessitate the need for the broad policies banning cell phones in hospitals.

Don’t you think that you and others should have been offered one-- just one- cite or expert that rebukes my cites and stance? Because that would have gone farther to dispel my stand and my contention than, ‘Well I work in a hospital and it once screwed up our wireless mikes, so I know it does something. Besides, studies have shown it affects equipment. Who cares that it wasn't much, or that it could never really happen in the real world, any risk is reason enough for the policy.’

And you call my position, and the way I argued it, "mind boggling"?

Boggle nothing. I came out and argued the point the only way it should have been argued—with facts, evidence, and expert opinion.

All you offered up was irrelevant personal experience and preconceived ideas based on… I don’t know, irrelevant personal experiences?

Stupid, silly, mind boggling dumb argument my ass. I did was I was supposed to do.

[casdave]

IMHO, anything that can cause a magnetic disturbnce in a hospital has to be checked very carefully and err on the side of caution.

an example,

At, Leeds General Infirmary, UK in the Clarendon Wing, there are a goodly number of scanners of various types.

When these were installed they performed so well compared to plain old x-rays and Ultrasound that it was taken for granted that they worked up to the top of their specification.

Some years later, yes sadly its true it took years for this to be discovered, it was found that images from these machines were not as good as those from Sheffield Hospital.

The machines were recalibrated many times, and at first it was supposed that the cooling systems were not keeping the temperature of various parts at a constant value, so greater cooling capacity was diverted to them.

Eventually it was found that the building was a steel framed affair, its a large building BTW, this meant that there were circulating currents induced from other electrical equipment in the structure.
We are talking microamps here, magnetic fields of an order far less than mobile phones, and yes this turned out to be the cause.

Huge amounts of cash had to be spent to bond the whole structure at a better unified earth .

Any monitoring device that makes use of electrical differances across the human body, such as ecg, encephalographs, even electrolytic measuring devices can be affected by stray E.M emissions, the currents and voltages the huam body produces are vanishingly small.
Yes it is also true that such monitoring equipment is designed to reject noise but it is still good pratice to limt such emissions.

Case in point, in the I.C.U the use of electric drill by maintenance staff is carefully monitored, mostly they use the battery powered stuff.The aim is to reduce the amount of E.M noise around sensitive monitoring equipment.

These precautions may seem over the top, but, as in the case of the M.R.I scanners, you just never know.

[Tars Tarkas]

Why does he have to back up his claim? This speaks for itself: "Of 33 medical devices tested, only 4 showed disruption of critical function due to cell phone emissions at a distance of 25 cm or greater.

4/33 is 12% of types of hospital equipment is disrupted by cell phones at a distance. Others get interferred with when the phones are close by, like someone visiting their relative in the room and forgetting to turn off the phone. The article doesn't mention which equipment is distrupted, either.

[Gatopescado]

no comment

[CnoteChris]

You're not taking the other arguments and links into account, Tars. It's kind of important that you do.

And maybe that's the problem I'm having with this argument. Instead of looking at one lone statistic or fact, I assume you'll look at all of the facts, and take each into account before basing an opinion. Because by not doing so, you can be misleading with the facts.

For instance, in the statistic listed above, it's important to note the role other common devices play in that figure too-- it's why I included this line, "At a distance of 1m; 41% of medical devices suffered interference from emergency services handsets, 35% suffered interference from security/porters handsets, but only 4% from cellphones".

So what you're doing is taking a small number of general items that cause disturbances and studying those. Once there, you take that group, small in and of itself, an home in on the even smaller number where the effects are deemed as ‘significant’.

It seems to me that isn't fair-- you're weeding the number down by extrapolation to a level where you can inflammatorily say, "12% of types of hospital equipment is disrupted by cell phones at a distance", without taking into account any other factor.

That's not how I was arguing it. I was arguing that compared to other things, things not as regulated or controlled as cell phone use, it isn't that big of a deal. And because of that, there isn't the need for the current regulations and policies.

Maybe that’s wrong, and in fact I am and idiot, but that’s how I was going about the argument.

[Tars Tarkas]

I would think the hospital is erring on the side of caution (like casdave said) and the risk of interferrance by other hospital equipment is offset by the other equipment themselves or the health care professionals using them, while cell phones could be used by any average joe walking by the room, and without rules to regulate them, the hospital could be liable for any interferrance they cause, and without medical professionals close by, something could happen to the patients.

[White Lightning]

Either way, it's clearly a defensible argument, and certainly doesn't seem like a mind-boggling position to me. It hardly warrants a mention in a 'dipstick posters' thread. And isn't that the point?

[CnoteChris]

Yeah, it is.

I didn't come in here to re-argue the point, I could have done that when the thread was originally closed. I didn't. I only include my arguments now as support for why I find the inclusion in the 'idiot thread' insulting.

Everything I did was within the tried and true rules of the board- state your opinion, and back it up as best you can. I did that.

If you disagree with me, fine. But saying I went about it all wrong and that, in and of itself, makes me an idiot supporting an idiots idea, is a point of contention I'm willing to duke it out on.

[CnoteChris]

A couple hundred viewed, but not a lot of comments.

You might as well weigh in...

Good thing to start this?

Bad thing to start this?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Bad. It just reminds me that you said you'd tell hospital staff to "buzz off" if they told you to turn off your cell phone in the hospital. Do that in my facility and I will encourage the authorities to deal with you firmly.

QtM, MD

[Boyo Jim]

I've been out of town or I would have responded sooner.

First of all, I want to point out that I posted the link to the thread in question as an example of the type of thread that did NOT fit into the category of a POSER, but that of someone who simply doesn't understand the import of facts they themselves provide. You clearly did not appreciate that a 4.9% chance of cellular interference (this is lowest figure I found in links provided by YOU, the highest --again provided by YOU -- was 41%) is a virtual guarantee of repeated daily interference by cell phones in any hospital of significant size (think of the number of calls and callers on any given day). You also clearly could not appreciate that just because medical equipment was not visible to you, that it, or RF sensitive cables could be over your head, under your feet, or behind the wall.

Second I will point that EVERY other member who posted an opinion in that thread disagreed with your conclusion.

I will repeat most of my post in an earlier thread to demonstrate why is STILL boggles my mind that you think that banning cell phones in hospitals is illigitimate:

I don't need to find any cites if my own when yours are making my point so well

Your first site (http://www.rnpalm.com/EMI.htm)says (why do I need to repeat this?):
1. 4% of medical devices suffered interference from cell phones.
2. The FDA considers cell phone a known source of interference.

Your second site (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010109075859.htm) says:
1. Cell phone interference was measurable in 41% devices tested.
2. In 7.4% of tests, the interference was determined as "clinically important.

Your third site (http://www.electric-words.com/cell/abstracts/mo161621.html) reports that 4 of 33 medical devices (12%) showed "disruption of critical function" at a distance of 25cm or greater.

None of these sites has specified a distance beyond which cell phones are unambiguously safe, or beyond which they detected no interference. They ALL say, the closer the cell phone, the more chance of interference, and vice versa.

What I want is for you to understand that these are in no way "infinitesimally low, if almost non-existent." When you are in the midst of dozens or hundreds of patients and pieces of medical equipment, and dozens or hundreds of calls made each day, that means there is a virtual certainty there will be DAILY interference of one level or another. Patients and gear might be in front of you. They might be upstairs, or downstairs, and completely out of your sight. There might be communications cables running under your feet, which themselves are subject to interference.

You are right that it is unlikely that your cell phone call is unlikely to cause a problem. I assume you have a PCS phone? , since that was the technology specified as being safer.

You are also right that every electronic device generates fields which can possibly cause such interference. Hospitals deal with this by testing and controlling their own equipment as much as practical.

You're just flat out wrong characterizing such rules as a "sham".


I will add a further quote of yours in that thread which I did not comment on at the time:

Granted, in my case the situations weren't life threatening and the need to have instant communication with the outside world, on my part, was relatively low. But my _personal_ needs, for the shear sake of my staying calm and (To me, at least) being in control of the situation, were high. I needed that contact. Anything that could have alleviated some of that stress, and some of that emotion, seems to me to be advantageous to the hospital, especially when the risks seem to be minimal as they are.

Imagine you replaced my GF and her toothache with a family member who'd been in a serious car accident. Imagine a hospital worker approaching one of their family members in the waiting room (As was my case) trying to reach outside family members and friends and telling them they couldn't use their cell phone. That’s appropriate?

Do the risks to patient’s health from EMF emissions outweigh the benefit to that family member?

Not even close, if you ask me (And granted, it's extreme example, but one that I'm sure has come up).

This final opinion makes you not only wrong, but an unbelievably self-centered oaf.

[SpaceDog]

I feel I have to weigh in on this one, I don't believe it is a clearly defensible argument. As yojimboguy has pointed out you are talking about a risk (however small) that can be easily prevented at a little personal inconvenience to you. If it was a really life-and-death situation I'm sure most hospitals have pay phones or would contact someone who could contact everyone else for you.

You don't need to use your mobile and I believe the 'poser' thread was merely highlighting your dogged reluctance to accept the flaw in your argument. Which is basically: If there is any risk, no matter how small, that your cell phone could cause a potentially dangerous situation then you should not use your cell phone. Hospitals have the right to enforce that. You seem to be saying you have a 'right' to use your cell phone, unless you can highlight a situation where your need to make that call outweighs the possibility of disruption I'm afraid I can't agree with your point.

You also have to take into account the possibility that a phone could be faulty, or possibly interfering with other electronic communications throughout the hospital. Just because you use the cell phone and the machine next to you doesn't blow up doesn't mean nothing odd has happened elsewhere.

SD

[TwistofFate]

Hold on. You would rather Hospitals take a 5% risk of patient safety versus a 0% risk of patient safety? Its better to be over cautious when you are dealing with machines that are helping to keep people alive.

[RexDart]

I don't think the argument, as phrased by CNoteChris, is "indefensible." There are certainly some points to be made. At the very least, even if statistics hold up a risk, there's a balancing to be done between certain conveniences and risks.

That sort of thing is never simple. I've read plenty of debates and positions in magazines and newspapers that hinged on whether such-and-such inconvenience was severe enough to warrant the mere possibility of such-and-such adverse result. Those debates can round and round, ultimately ending when one party declares as if by fiat that "the risk is too grave, anyone who values it otherwise is cold-hearted and selfish" or that "the risk is too remote, you're just a safety-fascist if you disagree."

Considering that this type of argument has often degenerated to that level, I'm cautious of calling either of the opinions "indefensible." If it's vigorously debated, clearly it isn't "indefensible", as it is being defended. As convinced as both myself and the wonderful Gerald Posner are that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK, I wouldn't call the more sane conspiracy theories (that he was paid to do it, for instance) "indefensible." I reserve that for people who think JFK was killed by a poison dart launched by "umbrella man" from the umbrella's tip.

In summation....at the very least, I don't think CNoteChris's position is so ludicrous as to have belonged alongside the other examples in that thread. In general, any argument with a moral valuation component is hazy enough to warrant at some consideration for both sides.

[Boyo Jim]

So what the hell happened to Cnotechris? A near 3,000 poster, and not a single one since the last one in this thread? Damn, I wanted to argue.

[Anahita]

/me sings:

Bah-bah-bah...Another one bites the dust.

I love Freddie, I sure do.

[Guinastasia]

CnoteChrist, why do you keep harping on this? Really, this is a pretty stupid rant.

[Guinastasia]

On 2nd inspection, I saw that this is from last month. Ignore my last post.

:o

[Mac Guffin]

Originally posted by yojimboguy
So what the hell happened to Cnotechris? A near 3,000 poster, and not a single one since the last one in this thread? Damn, I wanted to argue.

Well, if there were any devine justice in the world, then Ol' Cnote would be in a hospital on life support that fails as some dumbass makes a phone call on their cellphone.

(Not to say I would wish that on anyone. But the irony would be oh so tasty.)

I say it again. Hospitals are loaded up with landline telephones. I your call is that important that you can't wait to walk to the parking lot to make it, then call from one of those, dumbass.

[Geek Mecha]

Jesus Christ. You don't even know why he's been away.

No matter how much you disagree with him, Cnote's viewpoint doesn't warrant that unsubtle death comment.

Furthermore, your "if there were any devine [sic] justice in the world, then Ol' Cnote would be in a hospital on life support that fails as some dumbass makes a phone call on their cellphone" comment doesn't jive with your "not to say I would wish that on anyone" disclaimer. If you aren't wishing that upon him in even a roundabout way, then why else would you post something like that?

To point out the irony. Right.

This thread's old. Everyone's made their points. Why can't we leave it the fuck alone?