Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
by treypitt on Monday October 21, 2019 @07:29AM
(#21311018)
The article explicitly calls the 200 participants the world's leading experts in non-ionizing radiation. I haven't researched their credentials or examined their research. But if all existing research points in one direction, that constitutes empirical evidence. Of course methodological and statistical problems abound across all academia. The article makes existing research seem unequivocal and argues we need to conduct further research for 4G as well as 5G health effects
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Fortunately the article is wrong because the signers are almost all either: 1) long-retired and out of the game entirely, 2) not trained in the field or qualified at all, or 3) known quacks who have peddled this kind of thing for years, or some combination of the three, and the articles cited are all written by that same population (and often published in no-name journals that I could probably get published in) or don't say what the author claims they do (many of the articles explicitly state that they found no connection whatsoever).
So I guess the moral of the story is "don't believe everything you see in pop science magazines," although I would have hoped nobody did to begin with(?)
Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
by notacoward on Monday October 21, 2019 @10:39AM
(#21312760)
Not a true Scotsman among them, huh?
Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
by joshuamorton on Monday October 21, 2019 @11:00AM
(#21313022)
If you don't want to be called a quack, don't associate with quacks.