4 ms·
There are plenty of published, peer reviewed papers out there about this stuff, it's just that you aren't looking at them. For example: https://www.nature.com/
by macawfish 6y ago
There are plenty of published, peer reviewed papers out there about this stuff, it's just that you aren't looking at them.
For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3
Frankly, I'm tired of reductionist, rationalist attitudes that all but ignore the vast scope of nonlinear sciences that have emerged over the last 75 years.
It's not much better than climate denial. Just less blatant.
- mhh__ 6y ago"There are some papers that do demonstrate a "statistically significant" detectable link between something an EM exposure, but - even when the levels are anywhere near safety limits let alone what is actually outside - these papers can never find any measurable risk to the body"
- bildung 6y agoWe have the phenomenon that we now have very sensible measurement instruments usable to detect trace amounts of materials, or miniscule changes in metabolisms. This enables much new research, but also leads to essentially irrelevant news like cocaine in tap water everywhere, or results like this one you linked: Of course the insects absorbed the microwave radiation, as almost every living tissue does. The interesting research question, though, is: Does the radiation influence actual behaviour, or do actual illnesses emerge due to exposure? We also have a lot of this in research about humans. One thing that often pops up here on HN is blue light and sleep: We can reliably show that blue light exposure before sleep affects serotonine levels in humans, but we mostly have a hard time showing effects on actual sleep. (I'm not interested in derailing the thread here, just an example)