If I may use a buzzword, TCO, Total Cost of Ownership. What was added to the system due to the introduction of the item? What wouldn't happen if it was never invented?walle wrote:More hazardous to our health, yes; really. Or were you referring to car accidents as hazardous to our health? If so, please define what falls under hazardous to your / our health please.qviri wrote:More hazardous than automobiles? Really?
In case of cell phones, it includes radiation exposure, injuries due to malfunctioning equipment (exploding batteries or whatnot), all sorts of accidents that can be directly traced to cell phone usage (lack of concentration, etc), and costs associated with the society's dependency on cell phones.
In case of automobiles, it includes any and all accidents involving automobiles, costs associated with society's dependency on the automobile, as well as all pollution directly or indirectly caused by the automobiles since their introduction, as well as its effects.
Because humans aren't perfect, accidents will happen and need to be included in the TCO. An accident while using the phone may involve said phone falling to the floor. If the phone is on the heavier side, some foot injury may result. An accident while using the automobile may involve a 1t chunk of metal and plastic quickly coming to rest as a result of a collision with another 1t chunk of metal and plastic.
It is possible for an accident to occur during, and due to, simultaneous use of both the phone and the automobile. Since the accident wouldn't happen if either of the items were not introduced, it will be counted in the TCO of both items.
Consider having an ability to teleport. However, every time you teleport, a person somewhere in the world dies. You would be a horrible person to use this ability (except maybe to save many more people from certain death), but that doesn't mean the ability itself is not useful.Iâ€™m excluding faster text messaging, excluding surfing on your mobile phone as usefulness. Those are not useful enough (if you like) pointers, to motivate a system that is as hazardous to humans and wildlife as this 3G system is.qviri wrote: What definition of usefulness are we using here anyway?
Whether a 3G network is useful enough to warrant its use depends on your point of view, and probably your data. But even if it as hazardous as you claim it is (no opinion here as I have not done the research) does not mean that it is completely useless, as you had claimed earlier.
walle wrote:Actually yes, here in Sweden it has been of no real use, unless you view faster text messaging and surfing on your mobile phone as a â€œvalid useâ€