A convincing sounding, terrifying publication that's almost certainly total bullshit. Let's hope so. But for me, it's more interesting for the thought experime

A convincing sounding, terrifying publication that's almost certainly total bullshit. Let's hope so. But for me, it's more interesting for the thought experiment it demands. Imagine if something like this were true. What would happen? Suppose, just for a moment, that highly reputable scientists produced easily understood, irrefutable, reproducible scientific evidence of devastating medical problems caused by a common technology. You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist", or even very cynical to suspect from the depths of your heart, that every wheel and cog of a dozen multi-trillion dollar industries would spring to action and close ranks to refute, suppress, ridicule and discredit it. That goes without saying. So the question is - what are we really doing with science like this? Isn't such science is Copernican in its nature? Have we reached a point where unthinkable modern heresies cannot even be approached without those scientists being deemed a priori "cranks"? In other words, is there a sense in which we have faith in science but not faith in science as an instrument of truth to change the world for the better? And if so, what is that former type of belief really about? Anyone who wants to cling to shred of credibility in science today knows there are untouchable subjects, where keywords like "intelligent design", "eugenics" will destroy you. Is that circle of untouchable inquiry expanding? Though we've seen the battles over asbestos, DDT, tobacco and many other hazards come to positive fruition, without doubt the automobile/fossil-fuel camp won against climate concerns. So what hope is there for a growing body of psychological research that stacks up against social-media, smartphone use and surveillance? Are these areas of tech that are live-rails now?