Britain’s Times newspaper said Peter Angelos, a US lawyer who recently helped win $4.2 billion in damages from the tobacco industry, was planning to launch 10 claims against handset manufacturers, mobile network operators and fixed-line phone companies.
The news comes amid continued concern among some mobile phone users that radiation from handsets could cause brain tumors, despite research that has failed to find any link.
But there is no irrefutable medical evidence that mobile phones cause brain tumors or other medical problems.
A US study published this month concluded there did not appear to be any link, though it said more research was needed into the impact of long-term use of mobiles.
Venomous, stereotypical tripe denigrating a large group of individuals deleted.
Why limit the suit to just cellphones? EVERY APPLIANCE you have emits electromagnetic radiation of various frequencies!
With the idiots now serving on juries, we should be able to really cash in!
Of course, the lawyers will eventually destroy all industry in this country, but who cares!ITSALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!
It’s very simple. The plaintiffs believe that cell phones cause cancer. You, evidently, believe that they do not, a position no doubt shared by the makers of the cell phones.
So how do we decide who’s right? You say:
“Does not appear to be any link” is hardly irrefutable evidence that there is no ill effect, either.
So - we have two groups of parties, each asserting a different claim as the truth. How can we resolve this?
Well, here in this country, the court system is the preferred vehicle. Each side will get a chance to make their case to a neutral and detached third party, who will weigh the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and ultimately find a set of facts.
I’d destroy anything involving legal transactions and make myself the unquestioned, omnipotent ruler, judging any issue to be right or wrong based on what I feel like saying. Wouldn’t that be a golden society?
RANDOM:That really hurts, especially coming from a Board citizen as well-respected as you.
Sorry, Random. I did not bring stupid lawsuits and I did not rob the society. Lawyers do both. You seem to be one of the “oldest” SDoppers, yet you have not posted much. I do not know whether you view the MB as little. But let me inform you that I am not a “well-respected” citizen of the Board. There are currently three (3) anti-Peace threads, nine (9) pages total, running currently in the Pit. I am December ELOMA winner. If it helps to alleviate your feelings.
BREAKER:Well, here in this country, the court system is the preferred vehicle.
Preffered by lawyers. And greedy customers, of course.
What part of this procedure would you change?
If that is not a rhetorical question: everything, in case of cell phones. I’ll explain: I suppose that somebody somewhere was genuinely confused: after a cellphone use somebody got a brain tumor. But: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Low energy, high frequency EM radiation is not known to cause tumors. Tumors typically develop after long latent periods, of 10-20-30 years. Panels of experts have studied the particular problem specifically and did not find any connection.
Yet, the lawyers (read my link in its entirety) claim that all this does not mean anything. They bring the lawsuits. The suits are rejected. The suits cost money. The cellphone companies buy extra insurance. Many other high-tech companies buy extra insurance, just to be ‘on the safe side’. We all ultimately pay. I can’t find the ref now, but somebody calculated the cost of the negative lawyers’ drain on the GNP – hundreds of billions! I better finish before I mentioned the intangible costs.
I say we start with those bright lights at football games. There’s bound to be tons of radiation coming out of them! Anyone who’s ever been to a football game and gotten cancer can join in! Class action lawsuit!!!
Bright lights, huh? Hmm…well, during the day there’s this big bright light in the sky. Can we sue the government for not protecting us from it? I’ll bet a lot of people who have been exposed to it have also gotten cancer.
Bricker: Which part would I change? I would change the part that a) requires that determinations of scientific fact be made by people who have no knowledge in the area (I guarantee that nobody who can even define the word “epidemiology” will make the jury); b) encourages the use of the LEAST competent expert testimony; c) requires that a decision be made NOW rather than waiting for results of proper studies; and d) puts the question into an environment where FAULT must be assigned before it is determined whether damages ocurred.
The courts have a very bad history when it comes to science-based rulings. Just ask DuPont about silicon breast implants, the people who made the spermicidal sponge, or the trolly company who had to pay the woman who claimed that getting hit by a trolly caused her breast cancer.
I thought that in order to successfully sue for damages one had to show negligence. If there is no evidence that cell phones cause brain cancer, it’s hard to believe that the manufacturers were actually negligent in marketing them.
Peace mentioned the cost to society that lawyers inflict. Of course, this is as compared to a society where the innocent and guilty magically seperate themselves, and tortfeasors good-naturedly pay reparations upon receipt of a polite request. Any figures on the cost to society of not having lawyers? Also, any idea how the figure was calculated?
I’m well aware of your reputation on this board. I read most fora most days and am familar with the Pit posts you mention, as well as your postings generally.
True, I don’t respond to many posts, but that’s because I refrain unless I know something about the subject and have something worthwhile to say. Give it a try sometime.
Peace, I’m advising you to retract your “kill all the lawyers” statement. Or I’ll remove it from your post. Spewing hatred and advocating violence against anygroup, or class of people, is wrong and you know it. I see your comment to be no different from the views of a proponent of, say, killing cops. You have only a short time to respond to this before I delete your hateful comment.
Hey, did anybody else read about that computer programmer who shot up a bunch of people earlier in the week. Damn violent, psychotic computer programmers! They’ll kill us all!
Wow, look, it’s yet another asinine bash the lawyers thread! Peace and eg, thanks for yet again pointing out that our society could be a paradise if not for those damn money grubbing lawyers! I mean, we could still be driving our Ford Pinto’s around and inhale all the asbestos we wanted. Damn lawyers ruining our fun.
Of course, the plaintiffs that bring the cases have nothing to do with the litigation. Nor do the juries that actually make the decisions. And of course the poor defenseless multinational corporations, why they can’t afford any sort of legal defense at all!
And as we all well know, all lawyers are exactly alike and are equally money-grubbing.
Frank, I’m on top of the situation here. There’s no need for you to add fuel to the damned fire, okay? My remark asking for calm applies to everyone, not merely the posters above. Anyone feeling they must take another shot at the OP, do it in the Pit. There are plenty of threads already there for flaming Peace.
RANDOM, I got the point. But I think I may say something even about some nonsense, like Adam’s and Eve’s bellybuttons, if it amuses me and if a thought has crawled into my idle brains.
I fully respect your position - to remain silent.
Waterj:Any figures on the cost to society of not having lawyers? Also, any idea how the figure was calculated?
No, I do not know how the figure was calculated. As I said, I was not able to find it right now. I apologize. If I ever find it, I will post it. But apparently you realize that it is not an unfounded statement. There is tremendous cost. OTOH, I understand that some restrictions are needed, and some can be provided by “guarding” lawyers. But as you correctly stated, negligence must be shown, perhaps, even ‘malicious negligence’ or something. But if you put hot coffee into you crotch, do not sue McDonalds, if you scold it; sue you parents for shoddy workmanship or something: they made the idiot! Even tobacco companies did not know anything about tobacco/cancer connection when they started to sell cigarettes. And they never forced anyone to use their product. Cellphone companies do not force anyone to make calls.
** Any figures on the cost to society of not having lawyers?**
Granted, it would cost something. But it costs much more to have them than not. Not much harm was present in the olden days or is in other countries now. I will experience minor inconvenience without lawyers, but not much. But that’s me, I am an ELOMA winner.
UNCLE, sorry. I did not mean to kill anyone. Just forgot to put “ “ or something. Feel free to delete it. **At any rate, this is probably a moot point.**No it’s not. That was exactly my point: despite all evidence to the contrary, they persist. One of the untoward sequences is an unneeded worry. We live in a complicated world as it is.
Damn, just when I was gonna give up on peace, he directs my attention to Eve’s bellybutton. Now if that isn’t a thought to warm this dreary Friday afternoon!
All we are saying, is give peace a chance!
Altogether now…
