3 ms·

In both of those cases an causal link was established. Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel

In both of those cases an causal link was established. Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad.

carapace 7y ago
> In both of those cases an causal link was established. Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Look we know light pollution is a thing, right? And these transmitters are lights, right? To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas. > Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad. I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.
- godelski 7y ago
  > Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Except that the science was established and then there was deliberate disinformation. Scientists were saying for a long time that smoking was bad. There's a big difference between the talk within a scientific community compared to the public talk. Look at climate. Within the community everyone's like "well... we're kinda fucked..." outside it is: 1) from the left, "we have to fix policy! It is all the right's fault" 2) from the right, "what global warming? Even if it did exist, which it doesn't, it clearly is caused by these factors that couldn't possibly cause it. The scientists are paid by 'Big Green'". What I'm saying is, listen to the scientists, not the news. News anchors and politicians aren't scientists. > I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. It is clear. And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist).
  - carapace 7y ago
    Cheers! > And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist). Yes, it's clear. :-)

carapace 7y ago

> In both of those cases an causal link was established. Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Look we know light pollution is a thing, right? And these transmitters are lights, right? To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas. > Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad. I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.

godelski 7y ago
> Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Except that the science was established and then there was deliberate disinformation. Scientists were saying for a long time that smoking was bad. There's a big difference between the talk within a scientific community compared to the public talk. Look at climate. Within the community everyone's like "well... we're kinda fucked..." outside it is: 1) from the left, "we have to fix policy! It is all the right's fault" 2) from the right, "what global warming? Even if it did exist, which it doesn't, it clearly is caused by these factors that couldn't possibly cause it. The scientists are paid by 'Big Green'". What I'm saying is, listen to the scientists, not the news. News anchors and politicians aren't scientists. > I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. It is clear. And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist).
- carapace 7y ago
  Cheers! > And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist). Yes, it's clear. :-)