3 ms·
But you only seem to be pointing at the "the great unknown", yet we don't have a huge,sudden increase in cancers and other things associated with EM radiation b
by stjohnswarts 5y ago
But you only seem to be pointing at the "the great unknown", yet we don't have a huge,sudden increase in cancers and other things associated with EM radiation by those who are concerned about it. Science is about proving things and speaking with authority on that. I can sling "what ifs" all day long and it's almost useless unless I have an intention to act on it and prove or disprove it.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe first and by far most important step in learning, as in science, is acknowledging that you do not already know the answer. The subject here is people insisting, on the basis solely of wholesale ignorance of the whole subject, that they know all the answers. We don't have any evidence whatsoever whether radiation from upcoming generations of cellphone will stimulate cancer growth, or cooties. People who insist, on basis of that entire lack of evidence, that they know it doesn't are the immediate problem.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoYeah when you have some trend then it's worth seeking that, but right now the scaremongering over cellphones (especially 5G) helps no one.
- ncmncm 5y agoUltimately, whether opposition will turn out to have been right depends on things literally nobody has checked on. Never, in the history of life on earth up until just a few decades ago, had any organism been exposed to any hint of the radiation used for 5G cell phones. If, in fact, it does turn out to be harmful, not having conducted so much as one test of any kind should figure in the prosecution of the people who promoted 5G and who worked to suppress opposition to it. Thalidomide anyway went through a testing process. Pesticides don't. Yet, each time one is discovered to be carcinogenic or teratogenic, nobody is prosecuted. They count on that.