3 ms·

Isn't that how research is done? If a tobacco company publishes research explaining how tobacco promotes lung health and people start reporting their "research"

Isn't that how research is done? If a tobacco company publishes research explaining how tobacco promotes lung health and people start reporting their "research" as fact wouldn't that be a problem? There is opposing research with different conclusions that 5G may not be so safe, which I am sure many people choose to ignore since they contradict the WHO, and TV media reports. Its about sources and authority. Finding the truth is difficult.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
> Its about sources and authority. This is a simplistic and lazy when it comes to something that is built on well understood scientific principles. This line of thinking is what gives us flocks of people believing in easily debunked conspiracy theories. People who don't understand gas compression leading to condensation believe in chemtrails because a false authority tells them to and people who don't understand electromagnetic radiation search for an authority to tell them what conclusion to come to and reject in depth explanations. Much of medicine ends up being built on statistics because of the difficulty of drilling down to the underlying mechanics of what happens inside a living body. Statistics can be easily abused since most of the flaws end up being about what is not said and not measured. Electromagnetic radiation comes out of light bulbs at even higher frequencies. No one seems to worry about halogen lights and heat lamps. 5G is a broad spectrum of frequencies, what specific frequency and amplitude are you worried about?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 6y ago
  > This line of thinking is what gives us flocks of people believing in easily debunked conspiracy theories. I suggest you consider the possibility that language like this may do more to increase the magnitude of "conspiracy theorists" than your claim. The actual answer to the question is not known, and I suspect there's a decent chance that you don't actually know much about the people you're criticizing.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

> Its about sources and authority. This is a simplistic and lazy when it comes to something that is built on well understood scientific principles. This line of thinking is what gives us flocks of people believing in easily debunked conspiracy theories. People who don't understand gas compression leading to condensation believe in chemtrails because a false authority tells them to and people who don't understand electromagnetic radiation search for an authority to tell them what conclusion to come to and reject in depth explanations. Much of medicine ends up being built on statistics because of the difficulty of drilling down to the underlying mechanics of what happens inside a living body. Statistics can be easily abused since most of the flaws end up being about what is not said and not measured. Electromagnetic radiation comes out of light bulbs at even higher frequencies. No one seems to worry about halogen lights and heat lamps. 5G is a broad spectrum of frequencies, what specific frequency and amplitude are you worried about?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mistermann 6y ago
> This line of thinking is what gives us flocks of people believing in easily debunked conspiracy theories. I suggest you consider the possibility that language like this may do more to increase the magnitude of "conspiracy theorists" than your claim. The actual answer to the question is not known, and I suspect there's a decent chance that you don't actually know much about the people you're criticizing.