3 ms·

Heating was an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation still impacts tissue. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a possible link between cancer and RF e

Heating was an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation still impacts tissue. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a possible link between cancer and RF emitting devices just because we don't understand all the mediating mechanisms in that relationship. A lack of understanding is not negative evidence. And the fact that I can't disprove your butterfly theory is not a reason that simpler theories (phone usage ~ cancer) are invalid.

cornholio 9y ago
> A lack of understanding is not negative evidence Clearly, but anybody claiming the spooky action effect needs to accept the burden of proof and produce positive evidence. When that necessitates new ways of physical interaction unknown to science, it's a colossal burden, likely to have far reaching implications and revolutionize multiple fields; it's highly unlikely that such positive evidence was ignored for the decades the effect was claimed.
- Gnarl 9y ago
  You, also, need to see this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230