4 ms·
> We have little reason to believe it's dangerous either. I took that as the point of the article, we don't know enough to say whether it's safe or dangerous,
by qorrect 5y ago
> We have little reason to believe it's dangerous either.
I took that as the point of the article, we don't know enough to say whether it's safe or dangerous, so let's pause and study it "for real this time".
> Articles like this are little more than opinion articles.
This article sounds like it's the opinion of the 240 scientists that are calling for the study though, not an uninformed journalists opinion.
- Aloha 5y agoWe have a pretty enormous body of work that was used to set safe field exposure limits for RF. No one seems to be making a rational argument why that work isnt relevent.
- RobertRoberts 5y agoLook at the documentation of many industrial strength radio systems that include health regulations for exposure to RF. (sometimes on the outside of the box in stores even) A hand-wavy sort of dismissal of health issues around many forms of radiation seem to be common in the tech world.