311–320 of 613 posts
>>We conclude that, because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14629...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read the article, and I'm not a party to the 5G debate, but what you're describing in your comment is a meta-analysis, which is a practice that has produced some of the most controversial findings in recent times. If anything is needed to clear up an inconclusive body of studies, it's better and more reliable studies and experiments, not meta-analyses.
Meta-analyses try to find the unknown common truth by reviewing multiple studies and their methods and weighing them accourding to their percieved (really, calculated) quality. By combining the results of the best studies and giving us an overview of them, meta-analyses really are the best studies we have. "In addition to providing an estimate of the unknown common truth, meta-analysis has the capacity to contrast re…
I'm amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves. Yet they are very ready to call "more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields" "wackos" or "cranks with a PhD", call…
>>Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. One thing's for sure: there _is_ paucity of research on this topic - judging by a brief search on scholar.google.com for "4G technology health effects humans".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really. Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential cul…
> Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential culprit. Yeah I’m gonna need some data to believe that one. 90% obese / overweight? I’m calling bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's a very reasonable general approach. If made in good faith, yes. I’m not convinced that this is the case here, however, given that the author is fundamentally at odds with the scientific consensus on 2G, 3G and 4G safety, without acknowledging that he’s in the clear minority. In fact, he claims that the majority of relevant experts have signed the 5G moratorium, and this seems to not actually be the case. I a…
I think this is a reasonable approach in general. Whether it is made in good faith or not is a red herring and does not change anything. What's more important, since you mention the 'scientific consensus' and his claim that there isn't enough data is: What is the consensus on 5G (I suppose that means mmWave) and what are the studies it is based on? That would allow to make a factual comment on his claims about health…
That’s true only if we indeed know nothing about 5G, and that’s demonstrably not the case. In fact, the pretend open-mindedness is tantamount to denialism, if we accept that findings on ≤4G translate to 5G, and there are good scientific reasons for thinking so, based on our established understanding of physics and biology. It’s possible that 5G changes the picture, and I am indeed open to the possibility. But at the same time intellectual honestly compels me to describe the chance of this happening as low, given what we generally know about the biological effects of non-ionising radiation.
Put differently: Given what we know, it’s honest to say that 5G might carry risks, but that there is currently no good reason to assume so. It is not honest to claim, as the article does, that “we have no reason to believe 5G is safe”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. Because life expectancy has also risen; people who used to be dying of other things are now living long enough that cancer is more common.
Unfortunately the hunch you have just spendt 30 seconds thinking about is sadly incorrect. The increase in life expectancy doesn't account for the increased incidence of cancers. There are other factors at play, which need to be investigated (some that we know: obesity, pollution, cigarettes).
My money is on diet and pesticides/preservatives/etc. being another big one. With this, too, there is little official evidence that, say, Roundup, causes cancer, but there is, imo, a stronger lobby against a positive outcome in those studies, and they don't necessarily control for interactions such as Roundup combined with the surfactant that it is typically mixed with that increases cell penetration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#are-death-rates-from-cance... "In other words, the individual incidence of cancer deaths has actually fallen."
Don’t double post. But also, cancer death can go down while cancer diagnosis can go up.
Suppose that today the average person tells their doctor about a symptom of Example Cancer (which is incurable) six months before it kills them. 1 million people per year in Standard Country die of Example Cancer, with an average of six months between diagnosis and death.
Now, let's imagine I invent a machine, it can scan seemingly healthy people and tell them if they've got Example Cancer on average 12 months earlier. Nothing changed in terms of whether people get Example Cancer, it's still incurable, but now we've improved time between Diagnosis and Death by 200% but even scarier the incidence of Example Cancer, the number of people who know they have it, has also increased by 200%. It's an epidemic!
That machine is pretty unrealistic. A more realistic machine also gives false positives for Example Cancer. Now the number of people living with Example Cancer has increased by 500% but good news, most of those people don't die of it, because they had what medics would call "Sub-clinical incidence" meaning, sure, you had the disease but it didn't actually affect your life so who cares?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really. Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential cul…
> Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential culprit. Yeah I’m gonna need some data to believe that one. 90% obese / overweight? I’m calling bullshit.
With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (…
Genuine question: Is there a name for saying "past evidence hasn't shown this to be true, thus it's likely to remain untrue"? I was debating a different technology with a friend and he made such a comment, but my response was that the frequency, scope and importance of past technological advancements won't hold a candle to those of the future.
Something which was true/false for 10 years is more likely to remain so for the next 10 than another thing which was true/false for 1 year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Most people in the cancer field" seem to be pretty misinformed then. See [1] and [2]. At a minimum, health/diet habits have increased cancer risk in young people over the last 20 years, and probably other environmental factors/exposures as well. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
Sorry, i think you misunderstood. I believe that lifestyle effects do influence cancer rates, but I don't think they influence it as much as the effects I mentioned. Note that in the papers you describe, the increase in relative risk is actually fairly small.