> That's your bottom line, but you also seem to be under the understanding that this energy that hits our skin is at all times absorbed, which isn't the case in

> That's your bottom line, but you also seem to be under the understanding that this energy that hits our skin is at all times absorbed, which isn't the case in physical reality. It's mostly reflected -- the fact that the human body stops it means little with regards to it's effect on said body, or any such accumulation of effect. I certainly hope you are correct in this (in all possible practical situations and applications), and the ultimate things is of course, as you write, to > wait for independent replicatability in human models, or something more similar to humans, before I turn to FUD. But why outright disregard any doubt or questions or people that want to understand more before we implement some new somewhat untested technology? Calling them "absurd", "idiot", "frothing at the mouth", "blithely unaware of the last century of human progress", etc. - just doesn't seem helping the progress, and outright counterproductive. It's emotional reaction, a negative and attacking at that. Science has no place for emotions. It shouldn't be ok to be emotional about these things, just because you assume you are right. The other people assume exactly that about their own thoughts, and if you get emotional about it, you're just as counterproductive as the worst ones on the other side of the intellectual divide. It doesn't lead to new progress.