3 ms·

For the longest time I believed that cell tower radiation’s negative impact on living organisms is strictly pseudoscience. Turns out, back in 2016 a German stu

For the longest time I believed that cell tower radiation’s negative impact on living organisms is strictly pseudoscience. Turns out, back in 2016 a German study[0] has found damage to trees near the towers—starting on the side of the tree facing the tower, then spreading to the entire tree. This study, of course, does not show whether that measurably harms humans, but I stopped thinking those fears and complaints are completely unfounded. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27552133/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27552133/

notachatbot123 1y ago
The study's author is a well-known esoteric loonie. You are better of not trusting that study. Context in German: https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Cornelia_Waldmann-Selsam https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Cornelia_Waldmann-Selsam
- strogonoff 1y ago
  Interesting, thanks for context. Then, was this particular paper not peer reviewed or did it use suspect methodology?
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    Peer review doesn't guarantee much of anything, unfortunately.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    PubMed is highly problematic in that regard. It means basically nothing in terms of quality or quantity of peer review, but the "nih.gov" part of the URL automatically lends an air of real authority to any link that contains it. I don't know what you have to do to get a link on PubMed, but it definitely isn't much.
    - strogonoff 1y ago
      This is interesting (and unfortunate). It boggles my mind how academia makes it possible to publish (and not have to retract) a paper based around facts that are simply made up[0], while some bright and capable people I know don’t have ways to publish (unless, I suppose, they pay to some lesser pay-to-play journals) because they did not choose to be in academia. [0] Although I have not seen anyone in this thread tell me that this paper is false—it was mostly appeal to author’s preexisting reputation—I’m taking it at face value.

notachatbot123 1y ago

The study's author is a well-known esoteric loonie. You are better of not trusting that study. Context in German: https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Cornelia_Waldmann-Selsam https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Cornelia_Waldmann-Selsam

strogonoff 1y ago
Interesting, thanks for context. Then, was this particular paper not peer reviewed or did it use suspect methodology?
- pfdietz 1y ago
  Peer review doesn't guarantee much of anything, unfortunately.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  PubMed is highly problematic in that regard. It means basically nothing in terms of quality or quantity of peer review, but the "nih.gov" part of the URL automatically lends an air of real authority to any link that contains it. I don't know what you have to do to get a link on PubMed, but it definitely isn't much.
  - strogonoff 1y ago
    This is interesting (and unfortunate). It boggles my mind how academia makes it possible to publish (and not have to retract) a paper based around facts that are simply made up[0], while some bright and capable people I know don’t have ways to publish (unless, I suppose, they pay to some lesser pay-to-play journals) because they did not choose to be in academia. [0] Although I have not seen anyone in this thread tell me that this paper is false—it was mostly appeal to author’s preexisting reputation—I’m taking it at face value.