3 ms·
to anywhere near the power of 10^18?
by Gnarl 11y ago
to anywhere near the power of 10^18?
- maxerickson 11y agoI was disputing your claim that there is "no apparent vector". Which is why I labeled changes to society an obvious vector. If your proposed RF interference model has a factor of ~10^-19 in it, then a competing social interaction model that has a factor of 1 in it would have a much stronger effect, even if social interaction has only changed to the power of 10^0.1. So the point there is that the magnitude of the change in the environment is not sufficient information to do a comparison, you also need some sort of explanatory model.
- Gnarl 11y agoso how do you propose to measure this "social interaction" model? And are you really, seriously, running the "no mechanism" claim about RF induced bioeffects?
- maxerickson 11y agoI don't propose to measure it, I don't really have a lot of interest in the issue. I'm also not making a no mechanism claim. I'm pointing out that the magnitude you stated is insufficient information to draw any sort of conclusion. You (apparently) want people to be alarmed at a large number. A large number is not a good reason to be alarmed. A large number coupled with an explanatory model as to the effects that the large number can have might be a reason to be alarmed, but the number itself just has a lot of zeros.
- Gnarl 11y ago@maverickson: this just in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230
- maxerickson 11y agoI guess you misunderstand what I mean by an explanatory model. It would be something like: sleep deprivation=(x*RF intensity)+A Constant. Without x, we have no idea how relevant the 10^18 is to the problem. So I'm not demanding a theory demonstrating that RF can influence biology, just pointing out that the magnitude of the change in RF is insufficient information to draw a conclusion from.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]