5 ms·

It's easy to criticize certain people, especially conspiracy theorists. Yet conspiracies have actually happened and products have been recalled due to massive l

It's easy to criticize certain people, especially conspiracy theorists. Yet conspiracies have actually happened and products have been recalled due to massive lies being told that cost countless lives. Thalidomide, celebrex, Bridgestone tires, asbestos, Ford fuel tanks, cigarettes, 737max, etc. What's new is peoples' ability to organize and question what is being offered to (or in this case forced on ) them. They very well may be wrong, and a lot of their arguments are pseudoscience bunk, but it's equally ignorant to believe the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM that everything is safe. Corporations have repeatedly proven that they are perfectly fine killing us if it boosts their share price a buck or two. Maybe this is the new normal where industries have to be preemptive in getting public approval first before deploying new technology.

itcrowd 7y ago
Look, I don't disagree with most things you say. However, especially in modern times with all academic papers being so easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the argument of "believ[ing] the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM" makes no sense. Everyone, and especially (science) journalists who report on this, can look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature and accurately portray what is communicated through that channel. You don't have to swallow the science as-is, but if there is criticism, it should be on the methods or techniques; not the funding, or reasonable conclusions* drawn from the findings. In other comments in this thread I have shown evidence that 5G is safe and highlighted flaws in other blogposts (not scientific articles, mind you) that are pretending otherwise. If people don't agree with that, that's fine but show the scientific evidence for it. Yes, there have been scandals in the past. Does that mean every new tech is the new scandal? No. *(conclusions not backed by evidence are fair-game)
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  I'm basically on board with 5G on the health front because any form of radiation exposure decreases with the square of the radius and, as you have shown, no ionizing or other adverse effects have been seen with pretty much any RF source. I have mild suspicion that directional antennas could be used as a weapon, but I think that's unlikely-to-impossible. I was merely trying to explain why phenomena like this (suspicion, FUD against new technology) arise. People are losing their trust in what they are being told, and there are rational explanations for it.

itcrowd 7y ago

Look, I don't disagree with most things you say. However, especially in modern times with all academic papers being so easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the argument of "believ[ing] the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM" makes no sense. Everyone, and especially (science) journalists who report on this, can look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature and accurately portray what is communicated through that channel. You don't have to swallow the science as-is, but if there is criticism, it should be on the methods or techniques; not the funding, or reasonable conclusions* drawn from the findings. In other comments in this thread I have shown evidence that 5G is safe and highlighted flaws in other blogposts (not scientific articles, mind you) that are pretending otherwise. If people don't agree with that, that's fine but show the scientific evidence for it. Yes, there have been scandals in the past. Does that mean every new tech is the new scandal? No. *(conclusions not backed by evidence are fair-game)

JudgeWapner 7y ago
I'm basically on board with 5G on the health front because any form of radiation exposure decreases with the square of the radius and, as you have shown, no ionizing or other adverse effects have been seen with pretty much any RF source. I have mild suspicion that directional antennas could be used as a weapon, but I think that's unlikely-to-impossible. I was merely trying to explain why phenomena like this (suspicion, FUD against new technology) arise. People are losing their trust in what they are being told, and there are rational explanations for it.