On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple,
that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.

It's sort of like the common misconception of cold weather *causing*
the common cold. While cold weather can't possibly affect the causation
of the common cold, people *do* get sicker in the winter (but it's because
they are indoors more - not because the weather is colder).

So, at least, in that example of the common cold, you can *see* a
correlation of sickness (e.g., "flu season") with the weather (even
though it's a second-order effect).

Yet, with the cellphone common conception, we can't see either a first
order nor a second order effect. That's the paradox.

Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumb****s who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).