3 ms·
A. This is simply a rebuttal to the too easy dismissal that is comparing levels of man-made radiation to sunlight. B. I am not a researcher, but you can read t
by oliv__ 5y ago
A. This is simply a rebuttal to the too easy dismissal that is comparing levels of man-made radiation to sunlight.
B. I am not a researcher, but you can read the paper and see for yourself. It was published in Nature in case you haven't noticed, this is not some kooky youtuber
- jjoonathan 5y agoA. The point of the exercise was to calibrate intuition for trends and intensities, not to talk about damage models. B. I've read a large number of papers in this genre and this appears to be another. Just like I feel my time is wasted every time I read another mouse-in-a-microwave study, I feel my time is wasted every time I read another "we built an antenna out of bio parts" study. And no, it's not "published in Nature," it's published in Nature Scientific Reports. That's an important distinction. It puts the paper far above kooky youtubers, yes, but it doesn't really filter for impact in the way Nature would: for example, I would expect to be able to easily get a mouse-in-a-microwave study into Nature Scientific Reports, but not Nature.