4 ms·

> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G This is false. > Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technolog

> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G This is false. > Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology Also false.

qnsi 5y ago
would be good if you could at least point/explain how this is false. Other than that we can choose: should we trust newspaper or a anonymous HN user
- dekhn 5y ago
  In short, there are a number of low quality studies (blared endlessly by newspapers that have no idea how to evaluate the studies) about how cell phone radiation is dangerous, but none of those studies has withstood extensive attacks by skeptics. There simply isn't any high quality study showing some measurable damage from cellphone radiation that has a detectable impact on human health. In the meantime, absent any realistic mechanism or data showing it's dangerous, the default position is "not dangerous". You should absolutely not trust "newspaper articles" (and in this case, Scientific American is a popular science magazine) about science. Even the best newspapers routinely mislead (intentionally or otherwise) in their science reporting.
- syki 5y ago
  It think it is good that evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. It illustrates how easy it is to dupe people. Since the first unsubstantiated assertions were made in a magazine it now falls to those who claim it is wrong to do the work to prove it is wrong. The one first making the unsubstantiated assertion is at an advantage in that naysayers are now put in the position of proving they are right. This happens quite a but with news reporting. This is particularly true with political reporting. It’s much harder to combat the initial messaging than it is to make unsubstantiated charges. Those unsubstantiated assertions should not have been permitted in the article.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. I missed this, and I am absolutely receptive to it.
    - syki 5y ago
      Meant to write “that evidence was not provided…”
qorrect 5y ago
>> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G >This is false. "They have considerable evidence", that's what you are saying is false ? The evidence could say it has no harmful effects - I think you assumed the evidence was damning - but that sentence does not say that.

> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G This is false. > Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology Also false.

qnsi 5y ago

would be good if you could at least point/explain how this is false. Other than that we can choose: should we trust newspaper or a anonymous HN user

dekhn 5y ago
In short, there are a number of low quality studies (blared endlessly by newspapers that have no idea how to evaluate the studies) about how cell phone radiation is dangerous, but none of those studies has withstood extensive attacks by skeptics. There simply isn't any high quality study showing some measurable damage from cellphone radiation that has a detectable impact on human health. In the meantime, absent any realistic mechanism or data showing it's dangerous, the default position is "not dangerous". You should absolutely not trust "newspaper articles" (and in this case, Scientific American is a popular science magazine) about science. Even the best newspapers routinely mislead (intentionally or otherwise) in their science reporting.
syki 5y ago
It think it is good that evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. It illustrates how easy it is to dupe people. Since the first unsubstantiated assertions were made in a magazine it now falls to those who claim it is wrong to do the work to prove it is wrong. The one first making the unsubstantiated assertion is at an advantage in that naysayers are now put in the position of proving they are right. This happens quite a but with news reporting. This is particularly true with political reporting. It’s much harder to combat the initial messaging than it is to make unsubstantiated charges. Those unsubstantiated assertions should not have been permitted in the article.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. I missed this, and I am absolutely receptive to it.
  - syki 5y ago
    Meant to write “that evidence was not provided…”

qorrect 5y ago

>> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G >This is false. "They have considerable evidence", that's what you are saying is false ? The evidence could say it has no harmful effects - I think you assumed the evidence was damning - but that sentence does not say that.