Debates on Climate Change, Wireless Technology Both Benefit From “Precautionary Principle” 1

With thanks to The Financial Philosopher (who himself credits Pascal):

In the face of uncertainty and the unprecedented, the prudent decision is simply to err to the side of caution.

If science can’t confirm global warming, but circumstantial evidence suggests it, mankind should adjust fossil-fuel consumption patterns and energy use. The result will be fewer imports of foreign oil, less carbon-intensive energy production, less pollution, and more investment in renewable energy infrastructure. For the vast majority of humanity with no direct stake in fossil fuels, the net result should be positive, whether or not it affects climate change!

Scientists are split on whether exposure to low-level radiation from wireless networks poses long-term health risks, but circumstantial evidence again suggests it. If the U.S. reduced allowed exposure levels and increased deployment of wired networks, the result would be faster wired internet service, a less cluttered landscape, and possibly less energy use! For the vast majority of humanity with no direct stake in wireless telecom profits, and no real need for a wireless internet connection wherever they go, the net result should be positive!

Check out recent documentaries (see upcoming post) for the scientific debate on health risks from low-level radiation.