Technology risk without safeguards
sabri at cluecentral.net
Thu Nov 5 20:52:38 UTC 2020
----- On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:58 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>> The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the
>> notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that
>> at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful
> This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say patently
Well, from the parts you quoted yourself, cut and paste from your email:
- "it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer."
- "the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far."
- "this is still an area of research."
- "these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to
know how they might apply to humans"
- "(ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow
conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer."
Which part of that is patently incorrect?
Again, I'm not saying anything regarding the actual topic itself, I'm not an
expert in that field.
> His findings go into the pile with all the other findings, and they get properly
Exactly. That how science works. Glad you understand it. You evaluate the data,
instead of dismissing the doctor as some kind of QAnon conspiracy theorist.
And that was the whole point of my post. I never made any assertion with regards
to whether or not the hypothesis was correct. I merely quoted resources which
indicated that more research was needed.
More information about the NANOG