71–80 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The WHO said so: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.... (Not that I trust the WHO, but just saying)
It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think there's a regulatory limit in the first place?
Because slow-cooking your brain is a bad thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
> It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero. https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c... > Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million…
High power radio transmissions have been used since the 40s.
Why did it take them so long to check the device? The iPhone 12 has been sold since 2020, so 3 years. They probably can't check every model released, but this is one of the most sold devices. If it was actually dangerous it would have been great to know it as soon as it got released, it's not some obscure product that no one heard of on the French market.
Wait so the phones cause cancer people were right?
That is still an ongoing debate [1] and one side of the argument is heavily influenced and funded by the telecom industry [2]. [1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... [2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...
Why did it take them so long to check the device? The iPhone 12 has been sold since 2020, so 3 years. They probably can't check every model released, but this is one of the most sold devices. If it was actually dangerous it would have been great to know it as soon as it got released, it's not some obscure product that no one heard of on the French market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
> It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero. https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c... > Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million…
Why did you stop quoting it there?
> There are several factors that help to explain the increase in incidence: population growth, population ageing, exposure to risk factors, improved screening and improved outcomes in other diseases (meaning that more people are reaching an advanced age, leaving them at risk of cancer). The incidence of different cancer types varies widely between different European countries, due to these factors.
There are better epistemic standards available than "numbers went up so my hobby horse causal ideal is doing it" despite its popularity on social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" ( Americanisms... ) of the EU, and while the EU isn't a true federal superstate union yet , but there's enough similarities that the EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were. While the majority of EU directives are enforced by member states…
> Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU That's not an "Americanism". It's a principle of the separation of powers and I imagine it dates back to the "Europeanianist" Englightenment.
---
It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things:
1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved.
2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized.
Then, consider that other-countries-that-are-not-the-US do exist, many of those are liberal democracies that arguably function better than the US for various scores - and of those very few (if any?) of those are modelled on the US’ system. While some other countries have a US system but score poorly overall (e.g. Liberia).
It is demonstrable that deep separation between the agents of the government - and the state - is unnecessary for a functioning liberal-democracy today: many countries using the Parliamentary system have an executive cabinet and an executive PM role which, under the US system, is considered part of the legislature - and the US is hardly the best example of “separation” of the judiciary when you consider how explicitly political the judge appointment process is - and the volume of politically-motivated and arbitrary SCOTUS rulings over the past 120+ years.
———
I understand that (non-crackpot) political-scientists would agree that judicial independence alone is far more important to a functioning democracy than a system that constantly pits an executive President against the legislature whenever their political party affiliation differs.
Don’t get me wrong: accountability is of paramount importance; I just want to communicate that having “separate but co-equal branches of government”, “separation of powers” (and other thought-terminating-cliches from middle-school civics class) is both unique to the US - and is demonstrably unnecessary for a functioning liberal democracy.