5 ms·
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 inter
by 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 agoI'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.