3 ms·
This is almost certainly bullshit. Keep in mind that NIH indexes the publication, this had nothing to do with NIH. A single "professor emeritus" author, while i
by version_five 5y ago
This is almost certainly bullshit. Keep in mind that NIH indexes the publication, this had nothing to do with NIH. A single "professor emeritus" author, while is shouldn't just be dismissed, is not something to take very seriously without significant additional evidence.
To his credit, he appears to actually propose a mechanism for the damage from emfs. Most of the stuff I've seen just imagines they must be harmful without giving any explanation how. I still don't buy it though (I have a phd in electromagnetism, take that fwiw)
- Varriount 5y agoAs a layman (albeit one with an interest in Biology), one thing that makes me skeptical of this article is the way it's written. Very specific assertions are often paired with very vague references to other papers. For example, an oft-repeated study was cited which involved exposing rats to EMF radiation. The rats then developed cognitive impairments similar to Alzheimer. However no mention is made regarding the strength of the electromagnetic exposure, nor it's range. Overall, it seems like the paper attempts to tie a number of different studies together, without showing that those studies have been reproduced. I try not to dismiss scientific papers like this out-of-hand, but there have been hundreds of (quite dubious) claims over the years that electromagnetic radiation causes everything from cancer to autism. At this point, any claim that "electromagnetic radiation causes <Insert Condition Here>" is going to need to be backed up by strong, reproducible (and reproduced) evidence.