-
and now ... visual pollution
few years ago, being a member of the Technical Committee of ARPA, and by order of the Board, I was assigned the task of writing a script to the broadcast partners, to clarify the issue of RNI and how meet the requirements of Resolution No. 3690 of the CNC in 2004, which by then was at the center of public debate, by the assumptions that could cause harmful effects to the population. Thus arose the first document that later, in September 2005 published in this Blog. If you have not read it, recominedo to do so before reading this note.
This first work, entitled "real danger, or acceptable risk" , which included extensive documentary research and legislation, also expressed some personal opinions, which generated considerable controversy at the time, and still today continues to generate.
The work received some criticism, but also many accessions, and the truth is that has given me great satisfaction, because it has been mentioned in many forums that discuss the issue of INR, and has become almost a classic debate.
Many colleagues interested in the subject, have contacted me after reading the article, including many of them, who did not know personally, to manifest their support and agreement in the opinions.
In this test, raised the theory of acceptable risk, which involves the implementation of any technology, and presumed to be much higher than the profit generated for the evolution of society, that the risk may involve the implementation of that technology.
However, despite the fact that never has found a single case in the world, affecting the health of any person, are still raising voices of outdated assumptions advocates of population health, which argue that radiation electromagnetic are harmful to people.
remember having participated in several debates in the Legislature of Buenos Aires, discussing the subject to enlighten lawmakers so they could form their own opinion, and legislate accordingly, there was a bearded gentleman who belonged to an NGO in all meetings, to refute our arguments, argued that he had a headache, and that was produced by the antennas of the cell.
many times stated that he had a headache, one day, after a lengthy discussion, the bearded man asked to speak, and said: "It is all very well but my head still hurts me .... "
remember most of these were about to lose control, and a Technical Manager for a station colleague, he exhausted his patience and answered loudly: "Look sir ... if you have a headache .... take an aspirin ...! ... Or rather, see a doctor for examination .... "
After the meeting, we all laughed at the absurdity of the situation, but it is pathetic to think that in areas like this, is so little serious discussion with the issue seriously and are not based opinions.
There is always a man who has a headache, a neighbor who died of cancer, or a friend who told us he's sick, but the arguments never contain a medical report to substantiate it, or a study conducted by professionals who endorse .
Unfortunately the voices of these ignorant, are the largest impact occurring in the population, which is always fearful that one unintended consequence of technology, finished decimating humanity.
What is surprising is that control agencies, which are responsible for ensuring the health of the population, do not deal with counter these actions nefatas, disseminating scientific knowledge that is appropriate, to clarify and reassure those who are worried.
This would, to paraphrase Mr. Nacucchio, a few days ago I posted some comments about a radio statements, such as from Myth to Logos, which is the basis of philosophy.
Moving from Myth to Logos, romances means moving away from traditional responses and explanations or arbitrary executions, own ignorance, logical and rational explanations, more characteristic of scientific knowledge.
Modernity, in addition to technological advances, has brought get a new rationale for humanity, an intellectual stance that is based on theoretical rather fanciful beliefs and in the Middle Ages.
Once again, we face a choice between apocalyptic and integrated, as raised by the great Umberto Eco [1] , in his now famous work.
remember that in those endless meetings in the Legislature, when they saw that it was very difficult to prove the alleged harm of radiation, there was a new argument that was the visual impact.
is as if someone had asked to develop arguments to remove the antennas, and then well as harmful to health, had to be ugly, and contribute to the visual pollution of the city.
The issue of visual impact is so absurd, as the damage to health. It is a subjective topic that does not withstand scrutiny. Who said that the antennas are ugly ...?
How can you argue that the visual impact they cause, is negative for the people ...?
to me, for example, antennas seem visually pleasing. Have a high symbolic content. I think they are the most eloquent proof that a city is modern and thriving. The
visual images always have a highly symbolic and social significance have implied. What is the difference in visual impact between an antenna and a building ...? ... .. Or a bus line 37 or a crane of the port, or a railroad locomotive Rock ..?
The machines also can be beautiful ... by the way, I come to mind the concepts of Marshall Berman [2] , one of my favorite authors, that in a perfect portrait of nineteenth-century modernity, says: "is a landscape of steam engines, factories, railroads, vast new industrial zones; teeming cities that have grown from overnight, often with appalling human consequences, newspapers, telegrams, telegraph, telephone and other mass media to inform an increasingly wide scale, of nation states and multinational accumulations becoming stronger, the mass social movements fighting against the modernization from above with their own forms of modernization from below an ever-expanding global market that includes everything capable of spectacular growth, capable of wastage and appalling devastation, capable of anything, except to provide strength and stability ".
I have witnessed in other countries, a similar debate, based on visual pollution, even disguising antennas have been self-supporting, like the trunk of a palm tree, topped with a tuft of artificial leaves at the top.
Is there a horrible thing to behold an artificial plant ..?
That is not to understand the essence of things. An antenna is an antenna, and will not cease to be because the costumes of palm, and nobody will really believe that this monstrosity is really a palm tree ...!
is a sterile discussion. Wireless communications require antennas and as the electricity needed for transport, posts and pylons, and automobiles, roads and highways to travel.
If any of these things in a negative visual impact, which in fact do not think, assume that is the cost we pay for using cellular phones, listening to the radio, have electricity in our homes and move in cars.
Ultimately, as Berman says, is the wonderful landscape of modernity that we invade, and that we are integrated, we celebrate every day, because we are living the most wonderful time of the humanity. Of course, the doomsayers do not think like us ... ..
[1] Eco, Umberto - Apocalyptic and integrated with the mass culture - 1965
[2] Berman, Marshall - All that is solid in the air desavanece - 1988
-
and now ... visual pollution
few years ago, being a member of the Technical Committee of ARPA, and by order of the Board, I was assigned the task of writing a script to the broadcast partners, to clarify the issue of RNI and how meet the requirements of Resolution No. 3690 of the CNC in 2004, which by then was at the center of public debate, by the assumptions that could cause harmful effects to the population. Thus arose the first document that later, in September 2005 published in this Blog. If you have not read it, recominedo to do so before reading this note.
This first work, entitled "real danger, or acceptable risk" , which included extensive documentary research and legislation, also expressed some personal opinions, which generated considerable controversy at the time, and still today continues to generate.
The work received some criticism, but also many accessions, and the truth is that has given me great satisfaction, because it has been mentioned in many forums that discuss the issue of INR, and has become almost a classic debate.
Many colleagues interested in the subject, have contacted me after reading the article, including many of them, who did not know personally, to manifest their support and agreement in the opinions.
In this test, raised the theory of acceptable risk, which involves the implementation of any technology, and presumed to be much higher than the profit generated for the evolution of society, that the risk may involve the implementation of that technology.
However, despite the fact that never has found a single case in the world, affecting the health of any person, are still raising voices of outdated assumptions advocates of population health, which argue that radiation electromagnetic are harmful to people.
remember having participated in several debates in the Legislature of Buenos Aires, discussing the subject to enlighten lawmakers so they could form their own opinion, and legislate accordingly, there was a bearded gentleman who belonged to an NGO in all meetings, to refute our arguments, argued that he had a headache, and that was produced by the antennas of the cell.
many times stated that he had a headache, one day, after a lengthy discussion, the bearded man asked to speak, and said: "It is all very well but my head still hurts me .... "
remember most of these were about to lose control, and a Technical Manager for a station colleague, he exhausted his patience and answered loudly: "Look sir ... if you have a headache .... take an aspirin ...! ... Or rather, see a doctor for examination .... "
After the meeting, we all laughed at the absurdity of the situation, but it is pathetic to think that in areas like this, is so little serious discussion with the issue seriously and are not based opinions.
There is always a man who has a headache, a neighbor who died of cancer, or a friend who told us he's sick, but the arguments never contain a medical report to substantiate it, or a study conducted by professionals who endorse .
Unfortunately the voices of these ignorant, are the largest impact occurring in the population, which is always fearful that one unintended consequence of technology, finished decimating humanity.
What is surprising is that control agencies, which are responsible for ensuring the health of the population, do not deal with counter these actions nefatas, disseminating scientific knowledge that is appropriate, to clarify and reassure those who are worried.
This would, to paraphrase Mr. Nacucchio, a few days ago I posted some comments about a radio statements, such as from Myth to Logos, which is the basis of philosophy.
Moving from Myth to Logos, romances means moving away from traditional responses and explanations or arbitrary executions, own ignorance, logical and rational explanations, more characteristic of scientific knowledge.
Modernity, in addition to technological advances, has brought get a new rationale for humanity, an intellectual stance that is based on theoretical rather fanciful beliefs and in the Middle Ages.
Once again, we face a choice between apocalyptic and integrated, as raised by the great Umberto Eco [1] , in his now famous work.
remember that in those endless meetings in the Legislature, when they saw that it was very difficult to prove the alleged harm of radiation, there was a new argument that was the visual impact.
is as if someone had asked to develop arguments to remove the antennas, and then well as harmful to health, had to be ugly, and contribute to the visual pollution of the city.
The issue of visual impact is so absurd, as the damage to health. It is a subjective topic that does not withstand scrutiny. Who said that the antennas are ugly ...?
How can you argue that the visual impact they cause, is negative for the people ...?
to me, for example, antennas seem visually pleasing. Have a high symbolic content. I think they are the most eloquent proof that a city is modern and thriving. The
visual images always have a highly symbolic and social significance have implied. What is the difference in visual impact between an antenna and a building ...? ... .. Or a bus line 37 or a crane of the port, or a railroad locomotive Rock ..?
The machines also can be beautiful ... by the way, I come to mind the concepts of Marshall Berman [2] , one of my favorite authors, that in a perfect portrait of nineteenth-century modernity, says: "is a landscape of steam engines, factories, railroads, vast new industrial zones; teeming cities that have grown from overnight, often with appalling human consequences, newspapers, telegrams, telegraph, telephone and other mass media to inform an increasingly wide scale, of nation states and multinational accumulations becoming stronger, the mass social movements fighting against the modernization from above with their own forms of modernization from below an ever-expanding global market that includes everything capable of spectacular growth, capable of wastage and appalling devastation, capable of anything, except to provide strength and stability ".
I have witnessed in other countries, a similar debate, based on visual pollution, even disguising antennas have been self-supporting, like the trunk of a palm tree, topped with a tuft of artificial leaves at the top.
Is there a horrible thing to behold an artificial plant ..?
That is not to understand the essence of things. An antenna is an antenna, and will not cease to be because the costumes of palm, and nobody will really believe that this monstrosity is really a palm tree ...!
is a sterile discussion. Wireless communications require antennas and as the electricity needed for transport, posts and pylons, and automobiles, roads and highways to travel.
If any of these things in a negative visual impact, which in fact do not think, assume that is the cost we pay for using cellular phones, listening to the radio, have electricity in our homes and move in cars.
Ultimately, as Berman says, is the wonderful landscape of modernity that we invade, and that we are integrated, we celebrate every day, because we are living the most wonderful time of the humanity. Of course, the doomsayers do not think like us ... ..
[1] Eco, Umberto - Apocalyptic and integrated with the mass culture - 1965
[2] Berman, Marshall - All that is solid in the air desavanece - 1988
-
0 comments:
Post a Comment