4 ms·
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fall
by PakG1 8y ago
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a public-health experiment: use a mobile phone today, find out later if it causes genetic damage or cancer.
I've always said this, and I know it's putting the cart before the horse in terms of scientific investigation, and I know that in the worst case, I sound like a tin foil hat. And I use a mobile phone regularly myself. But I've always always wondered. The article doesn't say anything definitive in either direction, so I still am left to wonder.
- naasking 8y ago> The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a public-health experiment They say this like it's somehow unique to cell phones. Really, how does this differ from any technological advancement? Didn't the invention of cars, wired phones, the printing press, the transistor, etc. also start distributing without any scientific analysis of the possible dangers to health?
- adamsea 8y agoThose are weird examples (asbestos and lead in paint/gasoline might be better ones) for this particular topic, but, no? Again using asbestos and lead in various products as examples, there are real dangers to public health in new products/technologies, and while I don't want to see the technological progress we've made stopped I do want to see more effort made to anticipate, mitigate, and lessen the potential harm caused by new technologies (and the irresponsible behavior of many of the companies pushing them).
- naasking 8y agoI don't see why they're weird examples. Every innovation may or may not cause health problems. Clearly cars do cause health problems, transistors largely do not unless you take a whole carbon footprint into account as well. How could you possibly know either outcome ahead of time? The point is that we don't know the health consequences beforehand, and anticipating them is not easy. You say you want more of an effort made in this regard, but do you actually know how much effort is currently made towards this end?
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y agoWell, maybe even too much effort: > Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors’ products
- jjoonathan 8y agoRadio waves were not invented by Steve Jobs. They have been studied extensively for well over a century. The "public-health experiment" the article wrings its hands about is not "causes cancer vs doesn't," it's whether the cancer effect is miniscule or even more miniscule. Compared to other everyday safety hazards (cars, sunlight, pathogen exposure, bath mats...) this one is laughable even if you take extremely cynical confidence bounds.