4 ms·

For others (like me) to whom the name is unfamiliar: He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer https:

For others (like me) to whom the name is unfamiliar: He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-still-argued https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-stil... After reading his ideas, I think we should all feel a little lucky that Trump hasn't made hime the head of the FCC. edit: posting as primary reply, because the point is important, but was downvoted because of how obliquely it was made.

lucideer 7y ago
Is it just me or are all the links people are posting in this thread to debunk this scientist from the same domain? I hadn't heard of ACSH, so checked their about page: > a pro-science consumer advocacy organization A consumer advocacy org. Not a scientific research council, as —I would argue—their name highly implies. Their about page also says: > We do not represent any industry. We were created to be the science alternative to “news” The top-3 links in the references section of their Wikipedia page that seem to contradict this line: - https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010605160_pf.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/0... - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-counci... - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/magazine/obama-administration-big-food-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/magazine/obam...
- BurnGpuBurn 7y ago
  Good catch! Seems that everyone posting links to ACSH is more interested in shooting the messenger than actual science.