6 ms·

Similar to the studies done on infrasound, which seems to bother residents living near wind farms. The studies show that the biggest indicator of whether you're

by typon 8y ago

Similar to the studies done on infrasound, which seems to bother residents living near wind farms. The studies show that the biggest indicator of whether you're affected by infrasound is if you're told there is infrasound being emitted...

DataWorker 8y ago
Studies show eggs are healthy. Now studies say they aren’t. Science is difficult and often gets impacted by market forces. Perhaps this is even more of a concern with psychological research such as the studies you are referring to.
- mrtksn 8y ago
  That's not the case. The problem here is that the media wants simplistic answers as "healthy or not healthy" but studies don't have such conclusions. What studies find out is "eggs increase X and decrease the probability of Y happening". This is not about science being difficult but an understanding of the outcomes being difficult. This is also how some people try to discredit science. For example, I was highly irritated by Dilbert's creator's argument on defending Trump's climate policies, he said something about swimming after eating previously deemed hazardous but now declared safe, therefore you can't trust experts.
- typon 8y ago
  If you can't reproduce something through randomized control trials, then you should at the very least be very skeptical about it and not pass legislation purely based on people's views.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
That's not really the question though. If you have someone eat food contaminated with lead or mercury, they may not be able to taste the difference, but that doesn't mean it's harmless. The question isn't whether you can immediately sense its presence, the question is the effects of sustained exposure. And the fact that the placebo effect is a real thing doesn't really tell you that one way or the other.
- andybak 8y ago
  Except we're specifically replying to a comment from someone claiming they could feel 5G.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Except we're specifically replying to a comment from someone claiming they could feel 5G. By standing next to the tower. That is a known effect from high power radio transmitters. You can feel that because it's starting to cook you the same way a microwave oven does, to varying degrees depending on the transmitter power. If you stand too close to a large military RADAR transmitter it can kill you dead on the spot. Then the response is referring to studies done at the power levels of an individual cell phone, and no surprise it's difficult to feel that. But the effects of long term exposure are a different matter. Moreover, with 5G they're increasing the density of the towers, which implies building towers with closer proximity to people.
- godelski 8y ago
  > the question is the effects of sustained exposure. There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger. [0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    A lot of the "reputable ones" were funded by the industry. The truth is this is very hard to measure. You have something that happens over a period of years and is difficult to control for. How do you find a group of people in modern times who haven't used cell phones in the last decade, but at the same time are not a group of monks or Amish people with so many other lifestyle differences that everything is hopelessly confounded? Being hard to measure isn't the same as not existing. The question is, what choice do you make when it's hard to get good information? Build a lot more radio transmitters that may or may not be a major contributor to the modern trend of increasing cancer rates, or prefer wired networks that don't?

by typon 8y ago

DataWorker 8y ago

Studies show eggs are healthy. Now studies say they aren’t. Science is difficult and often gets impacted by market forces. Perhaps this is even more of a concern with psychological research such as the studies you are referring to.

mrtksn 8y ago
That's not the case. The problem here is that the media wants simplistic answers as "healthy or not healthy" but studies don't have such conclusions. What studies find out is "eggs increase X and decrease the probability of Y happening". This is not about science being difficult but an understanding of the outcomes being difficult. This is also how some people try to discredit science. For example, I was highly irritated by Dilbert's creator's argument on defending Trump's climate policies, he said something about swimming after eating previously deemed hazardous but now declared safe, therefore you can't trust experts.
typon 8y ago
If you can't reproduce something through randomized control trials, then you should at the very least be very skeptical about it and not pass legislation purely based on people's views.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

That's not really the question though. If you have someone eat food contaminated with lead or mercury, they may not be able to taste the difference, but that doesn't mean it's harmless. The question isn't whether you can immediately sense its presence, the question is the effects of sustained exposure. And the fact that the placebo effect is a real thing doesn't really tell you that one way or the other.

andybak 8y ago
Except we're specifically replying to a comment from someone claiming they could feel 5G.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Except we're specifically replying to a comment from someone claiming they could feel 5G. By standing next to the tower. That is a known effect from high power radio transmitters. You can feel that because it's starting to cook you the same way a microwave oven does, to varying degrees depending on the transmitter power. If you stand too close to a large military RADAR transmitter it can kill you dead on the spot. Then the response is referring to studies done at the power levels of an individual cell phone, and no surprise it's difficult to feel that. But the effects of long term exposure are a different matter. Moreover, with 5G they're increasing the density of the towers, which implies building towers with closer proximity to people.
godelski 8y ago
> the question is the effects of sustained exposure. There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger. [0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  A lot of the "reputable ones" were funded by the industry. The truth is this is very hard to measure. You have something that happens over a period of years and is difficult to control for. How do you find a group of people in modern times who haven't used cell phones in the last decade, but at the same time are not a group of monks or Amish people with so many other lifestyle differences that everything is hopelessly confounded? Being hard to measure isn't the same as not existing. The question is, what choice do you make when it's hard to get good information? Build a lot more radio transmitters that may or may not be a major contributor to the modern trend of increasing cancer rates, or prefer wired networks that don't?