 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to FBGuy
Re: I simply wonder said by FBGuy:there is no substantial proof that cell phones cause cancer. Until there is scientific evidence Cell Phones increase cancer risk I think it is inappropriate to force manufactures to include a health warning about possible effects. That sets a dangerous precedent.
I find it curious folks are so worried about cancer risk but pretty much ignore well documented risk of using a cell phone while driving. Guess the C word is scarier then getting splattered over the highway.
/tom |
|
|
|
 Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | I agree, I would rather see warning labels about the use of it while driving. |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by Steve B:I agree, I would rather see warning labels about the use of it while driving. Just got a new garage door this weekend. There are no less than 4 warning labels they must affix to the dang thing.
You know that driving warning label would have to be in a conspicuous place, so perhaps we can put it right on the windshield somewhere so you see it. : )
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | reply to tschmidt
well documented risks, like tobacco. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to GlobalMind
said by GlobalMind:said by Steve B:I agree, I would rather see warning labels about the use of it while driving. Just got a new garage door this weekend. There are no less than 4 warning labels they must affix to the dang thing. You know that driving warning label would have to be in a conspicuous place, so perhaps we can put it right on the windshield somewhere so you see it. : ) thanks to door safeties we had to overried ours during the snowstorm. did a mid storm driveway clear and enough snow was falling and blowing in it made the door stop(snow broke the laser beam trip safety).
upside is we found if you hold the button down on the hardwired control it keeps closing anyway.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 hambone42Peace, through superior firepowerPremium
join:2002-02-02
Manassas, VA | reply to GlobalMind
said by GlobalMind:You know that driving warning label would have to be in a conspicuous place, so perhaps we can put it right on the windshield somewhere so you see it. : ) Maybe it could be printed on the aluminized sunshade, right next to the warning to "Remove before driving". 
The problem with common sense is that it is so uncommon these days, mainly because we've allowed the legal system to subsidize stupidity.
--
Sarcasm is the Body's Natural Defense Against Stupidity |
|
| said by hambone42:Maybe it could be printed on the aluminized sunshade, right next to the warning to "Remove before driving". LOL. So true. I had a sunshade for the windshield of the car with that exct phrasing on it. Why would that warning be needed? What moron would drive a car with the windshield covered up. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the same idiots who clear that "viewing hole" in the snow on their windshield.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | reply to fAcEtIOUs
the same idiots that sued McDonalds for their hot coffee burning them at the drivethru years ago
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
 koolman2Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:I agree, I would rather see warning labels about the use of it while driving. Every cell phone I've purchased new has had that exact warning in the front of the manual; of course, nobody reads the manual except me, so, naturally, nobody has ever seen it. |
|
koolman2Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | reply to bear73
The case you are referring to was legitimate. She didn't sue because the coffee was hot, she sued because it was negligently hot (185 °F/85 °C), enough to cause third degree burns to 6% of her body within seconds and 16% of burns overall. She had to have two years of medical treatment to recover.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v.···taurants
For what it's worth, my coffee finishes brewing at 65-70 °C (150-160 °F), but I can't touch it until it's about 50 (120). |
|
