4 ms·

The author's bias is apparent from his biography: "Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public He

by ttul 7y ago

The author's bias is apparent from his biography: "Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology." This article does not represent scientific consensus. It is alarmist, linking nearly every report that supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism.

carapace 7y ago
Did you see, at the top of the page, "Observations | Opinion"?
- katmannthree 7y ago
  Should that absolve them of writing deceptive articles that feed in to a type of paranoia that is fairly harmful to society[0]? [0]: Not that the anti-wireless people are particularly influential right now, but they're fairly close to antivacciene people in how they perceive the world with an almost complete absence of rational thought.
  - carapace 7y ago
    Well, first, I was responding to OP's complaint that the article "supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism." by pointing out that, in fact, it's not journalism, it's opinion. Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe. Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now?
    - katmannthree 7y ago
      >Well, first, I was responding to OP's complaint that the article "supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism." by pointing out that, in fact, it's not journalism, it's opinion. I understand the distinction, but posting dubious opinion articles on news sites is still problematic. The Scientific American does not host articles espousing racist ideologies / vehemently blatant pseudoscience, by publishing this it is a form of tacit endorsement (despite it going in their opinion section). >Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe. The problem is that both the antiEMF and antiVaccine people are in fact not applying scientific principles to the issue. Cherry picking studies and opinions that support a given viewpoint is at best a rhetorical argument from authority, it is absolutely not a scientific approach to verifying a hypothesis. >Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now? The urgency comes in part from the fact that the 4G network is congested and at capacity in dense urban areas, and also from political dealings between US and Chinese telecom companies.
      - carapace 7y ago
        Cheers! I really appreciate your reply. Personally, I hate e.g. those "magic medallions" that are supposed to "absorb" EM and the like, but I'm not yet convinced that bathing our cities with EM is going to turn out to have zero health side-effects. In any event, the issue should be settled scientifically, eh? I was surprised to see this on SciAm's website, FWIW.
        katmannthree 7y ago
        Likewise! I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I was also surprised to see it on their website, surprised and disappointed. The Scientific American used to produce wonderful articles and project guides, and I credit them with having helped jumpstart my love for technology. It is sad to see them publish low quality articles. I understand your hesitation with regard to increasing the invisible radiation flux. I would likely feel the same way if I wasn't close to the field. From my point of view I would be far more worried about the materials used to produce modern phones and the disposal of the resulting industrial waste, the volatility of their batteries (particularly from manufacturers with shoddy QC), and the ethical considerations of sourcing the materials used.

by ttul 7y ago

carapace 7y ago

Did you see, at the top of the page, "Observations | Opinion"?

katmannthree 7y ago
Should that absolve them of writing deceptive articles that feed in to a type of paranoia that is fairly harmful to society[0]? [0]: Not that the anti-wireless people are particularly influential right now, but they're fairly close to antivacciene people in how they perceive the world with an almost complete absence of rational thought.
- carapace 7y ago
  Well, first, I was responding to OP's complaint that the article "supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism." by pointing out that, in fact, it's not journalism, it's opinion. Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe. Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now?
  - katmannthree 7y ago
    >Well, first, I was responding to OP's complaint that the article "supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism." by pointing out that, in fact, it's not journalism, it's opinion. I understand the distinction, but posting dubious opinion articles on news sites is still problematic. The Scientific American does not host articles espousing racist ideologies / vehemently blatant pseudoscience, by publishing this it is a form of tacit endorsement (despite it going in their opinion section). >Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe. The problem is that both the antiEMF and antiVaccine people are in fact not applying scientific principles to the issue. Cherry picking studies and opinions that support a given viewpoint is at best a rhetorical argument from authority, it is absolutely not a scientific approach to verifying a hypothesis. >Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now? The urgency comes in part from the fact that the 4G network is congested and at capacity in dense urban areas, and also from political dealings between US and Chinese telecom companies.
    - carapace 7y ago
      Cheers! I really appreciate your reply. Personally, I hate e.g. those "magic medallions" that are supposed to "absorb" EM and the like, but I'm not yet convinced that bathing our cities with EM is going to turn out to have zero health side-effects. In any event, the issue should be settled scientifically, eh? I was surprised to see this on SciAm's website, FWIW.
      - katmannthree 7y ago
        Likewise! I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I was also surprised to see it on their website, surprised and disappointed. The Scientific American used to produce wonderful articles and project guides, and I credit them with having helped jumpstart my love for technology. It is sad to see them publish low quality articles. I understand your hesitation with regard to increasing the invisible radiation flux. I would likely feel the same way if I wasn't close to the field. From my point of view I would be far more worried about the materials used to produce modern phones and the disposal of the resulting industrial waste, the volatility of their batteries (particularly from manufacturers with shoddy QC), and the ethical considerations of sourcing the materials used.