3 ms·

I don't have enough points on my account to downvote. I do however have a graduate degree in a biology field and I'm telling you that the consensus on this fiel

I don't have enough points on my account to downvote. I do however have a graduate degree in a biology field and I'm telling you that the consensus on this field is very clear regardless. People not involved in research don't tend to understand that just because there are academic papers claiming something doesn't mean that people in the field actually believe that that let alone that its actually true. Low sample sizes and flawed studies abound. The amount of energy required for non-ionizing radiation to cause significant biological effects is orders of magnitude higher than anything you will experience from a wifi or cell phones. Don't sleep on a AN/SPY-6 and you'll be okay.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
- thunderbird120 4y ago
  I am aware of many of the studies being referenced in those reviews. You should be aware that sticking a handful of rats in a box and microwaving them has almost become a running joke because most of those studies tell you absolutely nothing concrete about the effects of normal levels of RF radiation on rats, let alone on humans. Peer review means less than you might think. For less demanding journals it usually just means you didn't do anything egregiously wrong and for very low impact journals you can usually get published if you have a pulse and have correctly formatted your manuscript. People usually don't publish null results. When people do publish positive results in contentious subjects you generally expect them to be rigorous and with high statistical support. A p value of 0.05 is not good enough because I know there are a lot more than 20 groups out there microwaving rats looking for something to publish. This is why when I click on that first review, look up the first study I see it reference, and see that the researchers are making claims using experimental groups of only 6 rats it makes me want to die. I'm not going to continue this discussion further.
- lostgame 4y ago
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    I link 3 meta analysises accounting ~150-200 scientific papers AKA more than you've read in your entire life and you call me pseudoscientist and conspirational? I understand starting to questions the safety of things you have always assumed to be safe can be mentally scary but that does not justify empty dismissals. It's true though that this is not a scientific forum and it often shows. BTW did you know that human brains including yours loose 10% of their axons every decade? Take this fact as a reward for your low-effort. edit: oicU00: Your thymus involute quickly.
    - oicU00 4y ago
      You should consider moving to a rural area and staying away from technology altogether. Having access to information seems to be making you insane via anxiety. It’s nothing but upside for you; less WiFi radiation and conspiracy addled inner monologue.
    - dismantlethesun 4y ago
      I am not the poster you are replying to but I feel the need to point out that 200 papers isn't an obscenely high number that most people on HN will never reach. I had to include at least 5 sources minimum for each paper that I wrote in undergrad. That means reading at least twice that number to find ones actually relevant to the subject I chose. Add this to the papers they require you read merely to supplement the text book, and your average student with 4 classes a semester can average 20 to 30 papers easily. It's just reading research. It's not like you have to write the papers yourself. I'd guess for my graduating thesis alone I burned through 50 papers over 3 months looking for supporting fundamentals before figuring out my experimental direction was stupid and I had to start again from scratch.
    - lostgame 4y ago

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

thunderbird120 4y ago
I am aware of many of the studies being referenced in those reviews. You should be aware that sticking a handful of rats in a box and microwaving them has almost become a running joke because most of those studies tell you absolutely nothing concrete about the effects of normal levels of RF radiation on rats, let alone on humans. Peer review means less than you might think. For less demanding journals it usually just means you didn't do anything egregiously wrong and for very low impact journals you can usually get published if you have a pulse and have correctly formatted your manuscript. People usually don't publish null results. When people do publish positive results in contentious subjects you generally expect them to be rigorous and with high statistical support. A p value of 0.05 is not good enough because I know there are a lot more than 20 groups out there microwaving rats looking for something to publish. This is why when I click on that first review, look up the first study I see it reference, and see that the researchers are making claims using experimental groups of only 6 rats it makes me want to die. I'm not going to continue this discussion further.
lostgame 4y ago
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  I link 3 meta analysises accounting ~150-200 scientific papers AKA more than you've read in your entire life and you call me pseudoscientist and conspirational? I understand starting to questions the safety of things you have always assumed to be safe can be mentally scary but that does not justify empty dismissals. It's true though that this is not a scientific forum and it often shows. BTW did you know that human brains including yours loose 10% of their axons every decade? Take this fact as a reward for your low-effort. edit: oicU00: Your thymus involute quickly.
  - oicU00 4y ago
    You should consider moving to a rural area and staying away from technology altogether. Having access to information seems to be making you insane via anxiety. It’s nothing but upside for you; less WiFi radiation and conspiracy addled inner monologue.
  - dismantlethesun 4y ago
    I am not the poster you are replying to but I feel the need to point out that 200 papers isn't an obscenely high number that most people on HN will never reach. I had to include at least 5 sources minimum for each paper that I wrote in undergrad. That means reading at least twice that number to find ones actually relevant to the subject I chose. Add this to the papers they require you read merely to supplement the text book, and your average student with 4 classes a semester can average 20 to 30 papers easily. It's just reading research. It's not like you have to write the papers yourself. I'd guess for my graduating thesis alone I burned through 50 papers over 3 months looking for supporting fundamentals before figuring out my experimental direction was stupid and I had to start again from scratch.
  - lostgame 4y ago