What Mr Rominski means is that he presented a "yes or no" question and does not consider whether it is in irrelevant or anti-scientific question. Science does not depend on what you or I or some other person believes or "honestly believes" (as opposed to dishonestly believes, I suppose). Science is not about belief. Religion is about belief. The work of science begins after some period of thought, with a hypothesis (or "an" hypothesis in some circles). "I honestly believe" is not a hypothesis. A person concerned with automobile traffic safety could reasonably wonder whether introduction of a million cell phones in automobiles might have an effect on collision rates. Considering that the numbers are so huge, he or she could examine collision rates before and after the very rapid introduction and growth of cell phone use. If he or she fails to find any increase in collision rates, the investigator concludes THAT hypothesis was not supported. Now enter the BELIEVER. The BELIEVER "honestly believes" and lacks the understanding that he or she has departed from the realm of science. Belief demands that cell phone use DID cause an increase in collision rates, but during those exact same years when cell phone usage had its inception and rapid growth, something ELSE must have caused a reduction in collision rates that masked the increase caused by cell phones. Maybe automatic braking systems! But the growth of cell phone use would have to parallel exactly the growth of ABS use, and other studies would be needed to confirm that ABS did indeed cause a reduction in collisions. Note that if the objective, unbiased search for truth is no longer driving the effort, it can no longer be called science. Now to sort of anser the "yes or no" question. It is quite reasonable to consider telephone use a distraction to driving. Just as radio or compact disk or tape cassette tuning, conversation with passengers, looking at passengers, beautiful scenery, attractive persons, attractive dogs, unusual sport or luxury cars or other unusual vehicles, woolgathering, daydreaming, etc, are distractions, Whether each of those or the combination is a sufficient distraction to have a significant effect on collision rates -- is another question. Many of us think we have observed phone-using drivers distracted to the point of slowing down to 10 mph or 15 mph under the posted speed limit, sometimes even in the passing lane. We can conjecture that such distracted behavior may cause rear end collisions or induce road rage in other drivers. Fine, but don't call it science and don't forget you must demonstrate that an increase in collision rate has occurred before you can determine the cause ot the increase. And lastly, to respond to the snide personal attack. Letters after a person's name sometimes suggest that person is SUPPOSED to have some acquaintance with science, but have no importance worth mentioning. Letters or degrees don't make a person's observations more reliable, although we might wish it to be so. My attitude toward the scientific aspect grows out of having had two sequential careers in science, one of which was in a rigorously scientific enfironment. Good Day C Herb Hickman Opinions mine and not necessarily those of any employer or associate. --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Rominski, Hank <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Rominski, Hank <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [SAFETY] Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 9:02 AM Mr. Percival, In order to establish a basic understanding of Mr. Hickman's posting, I thought it usefull to determine if he was using sarcasm or not. Therefore, a simple "yes" or "no" question was presented. As far as my opinion, I have been guilty of using a cell phone while driving and after the second near miss, came to a conclusion that it is indeed distracting. I have a son in high school of the early driving age, and hear about accidents and near misses from his friends. Texting is usually mentioned in the conversation. So I have come to the conclusion, that "cell phone use while driving is a distraction to the safe operation of a vehicle". Respect, yes, is important, however, we are all subject to our emotional reactions. As a safety professional, I believe that we should err on the side of caution and Anticipate, Recognize and do our best to promote the reduction hazards often before we see the science to prove our intuition. I become emotional on this subject, because I have had to conduct a few accident investigations invovling motor vehicles. They are not pretty. We should all endeavor to do our part to reduce them. As far as the way I presented my question, do you think your posting showed any more respect? Respectly Henry G. Rominski, CIH Industrial Hygiene / Safety Plum Island Animal Disease Center Safety and Health Office P.O. Box 848 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Ph: 631.323.3347 Fx: 631.323.3335 ________________________________ From: SAFETY on behalf of Frederick Percival Sent: Mon 07-Dec-09 16:39 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [SAFETY] Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks In defense of : If a person does not believe cell phone does or does not distract people, does it make them less of an person? Does it lessen their educational standing? Does it take away that many people are responsible when the phone and drive? No, in no wise does it. However, it a group or think tank or company policy says it is grounds to use a phone and drive on company property or time, then it is so. Just as there are people who believe it is not wrong, and it is so. I liken it to the glass is half full or half empty, Which is it? To the person who gathered the glass and blew the glass, he created it and therefor when it was finished was new and empty. Thus when he filled the glass and drank it to the half way point, to him it was half empty (is was created and born empty - it is his belief and to be respected). On the other hand was safety professional and he managed his finances and so could work six months out of the year and tend to his vineyard. Now, he was a fine wine maker and the owners of other vineyards desired his skill so their wine could attain such a standard. Each time he would fill a glass and others with filled glasses would drink them to half way it was said, "the glass was half full." For the product inside was precious and best kept full. Point is, Respect is a prelude to teaching. Offering ones through point of view openly as to ridicule means often an earnest for understanding. If a person is scorn, it is foolish. It a person is to seek the reason and understand another's perspective, so as to take time to reason in respect, this is the greatest of insight and teaching. I am reminded: "to correct a wise man and he will love you, to correct a foolish man, he will scorn you." I love what a US Army Col. did when a Tac officer (an Officer acting as an instructor) placed a well respected Tac officer on the line in front of a battalion of young officers. When the one Tac officer challenged him to recite the Ranger Creed, the Col, stood up and asked the Tac Officer who sought to discredit this valuable person, and said, Cpt so and so, "would you recite the Ranger Creed?" And he quietly sat down because the very thing he challenged he could not do. That day this wonderful leadership exampled a very keen principle. To lead by example, and to not place peers who are servants to generations and well respected souls in such a way seeking to discredit them in any manner. Mr. Rominski sir, would you please give to us your valid argument[s] so we too can be enlighten with said wisdom and knowledge and in sincerity you may gain others to your light? Sincerely, Frederick Percival for the heath and safety of it! On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Rominski, Hank wrote: > Mr Hickman, > > You are both a CSP and a CIH yet you make such a statement. I'm not sure if you serious. > > So I'll ask this questionm > > Do you honestly believe that cell phones do not distract drivers? > With Highest Regards, > > Henry G. Rominski, CIH > Industrial Hygiene / Safety > Plum Island Animal Disease Center > > Sent from Blackberry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: SAFETY <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Mon Dec 07 11:30:14 2009 > Subject: Re: [SAFETY] Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks > > Cell phone risks must be one of the greatest bonanzas for junk science in history, but articles like this are a big step lower than junk science. "The federal government estimates bla bla bla . . ." "Researchers at Harvard estimated bla bla bla bla . . . " One big unsupported assertion after another. > > C Herb Hickman, CIH, CSP > Opinions mine and not necessarily those of any employer or associate. > > > --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Richard Dresser <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Richard Dresser <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [SAFETY] Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 8:12 AM > > > Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/technology/07distracted.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th > .......... > > > They found that drivers using cellphones were four times likelier to get into accidents than drivers who were focused entirely on the road. > > "This relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit," the researchers wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine . They said hands-free devices were no safer than hand-held phones because of the distraction that comes from focusing on a conversation, not the road. > > > The research was not easy for the industry to ignore, particularly given that a wireless company, AT&T, had helped pay for a widely publicized study. > > AT&T paid Harvard researchers to study the economic value created by drivers using cellphones. In 2000, the researchers put that value at $43 billion. But in late 2002, based on an update to the findings, it was those researchers who estimated that distracted drivers using phones also caused 2,600 deaths each year and 570,000 accidents that caused injuries. > "It's been a very consistent picture," said Chris Monk, a researcher at the agency. "Frankly, I get a little annoyed that we continue to see studies that investigate the effects of cellphone use on driving, because they all show the same thing, whether you're talking hands-free or not." > > -------------- > > Regards, > > Richard > > Richard Dresser, CSP,CET > Mail Code QA00 > Safety & Mission Assurance > NASA Contract Assurance Services CSP > A-3 Test Stand Construction > Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000 > http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/home/index.html > email: [log in to unmask] > > > > > --- > This e-mail is from the [log in to unmask] list. > Archives of list discussions can be found at http://list.uvm.edu/archives/safety.html > > > > > > --- > This e-mail is from the [log in to unmask] list. > Archives of list discussions can be found at http://list.uvm.edu/archives/safety.html --- This e-mail is from the [log in to unmask] list. Archives of list discussions can be found at http://list.uvm.edu/archives/safety.html --- This e-mail is from the [log in to unmask] list. Archives of list discussions can be found at http://list.uvm.edu/archives/safety.html --- This e-mail is from the [log in to unmask] list. Archives of list discussions can be found at http://list.uvm.edu/archives/safety.html