3 ms·

I think you raise a fair point here regarding the unproven harm/benefit. The same default to "it must be bad" happened with mobile phone radiation. If people ar

I think you raise a fair point here regarding the unproven harm/benefit. The same default to "it must be bad" happened with mobile phone radiation. If people are going to be in business of unsubstantiated claims then that one always struck me as rich: you could just as easily imagine a scenario where the extra heat improves blood flow thus enhancing cognitive ability! (to be clear I'm not seriously suggesting this) It's reasonable to discuss this with an open mind even if the vast majority of human environmental impact have been negative for life (eg pesticides, lead, CFCs etc)

XorNot 6y ago
There's a difference between no known mechanism (and the effect being completely swamped by the environment) versus actually having a contaminant persist in the body, which historically is usually the precursor of larger effects. I.e. asbestos is harmless, and would be harmless if didn't remain in the lungs, and we just breathed it back out. Hell, you can handle most radioactive isotopes quite safely provided they don't enter the body in a persistent way.