Re:5G Virus Conspiracy Theory Fueled by Coordinated Effort
by meowface on Thursday April 09, 2020 @06:46PM
(#22827987)
>Maybe I'm that guy, but I think that the whole EM->cell or DNA interaction is a load of bunk until you get into extreme power at very short range.
I think so, too, and this is what the science currently appears to show. But my point is really much more of a general one: there are always unknown unknowns out there. It's not totally implausible that it could one day be discovered that there's some strange mechanism of action that we had no idea was present, like some sort of subtle cell machinery disruption for a specific kind of cell from certain frequencies and amplitudes which otherwise wouldn't cause any damage through sheer aggregate photon exposure, or something like that.
To reiterate, I think that that's unlikely. But I'm saying just as a general principle, it's hard to assess the potential harm of something purely based on your own subjective feeling about it, because if it actually is affecting you, you often really may not have any way of being cognizant of that fact. It's actually more likely that that would be the case the more likely that it's believed to be safe, because dramatic effects would increase the odds of the effect showing up in studies. There's a huge buffer between where you may still feel totally fine and functional over years and where you start to actually notice some harmful effects. Many people with low-level chronic exposure to some harmful thing may remain in that buffer zone forever.
For example, the water I drink has fluoride in it, and from everything I've read I don't believe the low levels that are in the water have a negative impact on health. But if somehow the scientific consensus eventually turns out to be wrong and there actually were some subtle impact to cognition that accrued over decades, would I be aware of this just by analyzing my own behavior and functionality over the years? Probably not. I don't think fluoridated water is harmful, but I also acknowledge it's quite possible I wouldn't be able to know if it's harmful or not just by introspection alone.
I think so, too, and this is what the science currently appears to show. But my point is really much more of a general one: there are always unknown unknowns out there. It's not totally implausible that it could one day be discovered that there's some strange mechanism of action that we had no idea was present, like some sort of subtle cell machinery disruption for a specific kind of cell from certain frequencies and amplitudes which otherwise wouldn't cause any damage through sheer aggregate photon exposure, or something like that.
To reiterate, I think that that's unlikely. But I'm saying just as a general principle, it's hard to assess the potential harm of something purely based on your own subjective feeling about it, because if it actually is affecting you, you often really may not have any way of being cognizant of that fact. It's actually more likely that that would be the case the more likely that it's believed to be safe, because dramatic effects would increase the odds of the effect showing up in studies. There's a huge buffer between where you may still feel totally fine and functional over years and where you start to actually notice some harmful effects. Many people with low-level chronic exposure to some harmful thing may remain in that buffer zone forever.
For example, the water I drink has fluoride in it, and from everything I've read I don't believe the low levels that are in the water have a negative impact on health. But if somehow the scientific consensus eventually turns out to be wrong and there actually were some subtle impact to cognition that accrued over decades, would I be aware of this just by analyzing my own behavior and functionality over the years? Probably not. I don't think fluoridated water is harmful, but I also acknowledge it's quite possible I wouldn't be able to know if it's harmful or not just by introspection alone.