Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the same vein as the other thread on the pitfalls of getting news from popular sources rather than the scientific lit, maybe a discussion of the pitfalls in assessing risks may be worthwhile.
The thought struck me as I watched the news this AM. An expert on economics/business of communications was asked if he thought there were health risks to consider as the new 5G networks come into use, given that they employ higher energy EM radiation than those now in use.
He emphatically denied the possibility, but he's not a scientist, and the amount of data on the topic is very scant. Maybe his level of confidence isn't warranted quite yet.
But more generally, I would submit that for any new technology, some risk is probably involved. The real question is "how much increased risk is there compared to the background risk?"
There are any number of controversial topics: health risks of GMO foods or glyphosate or high tension power lines, or effects of increasing co2, health benefits of Vit C or statins etc etc.
It seems to me that if the data shows increased (or decreased) risks so close to the background risk that there is room for argument about its veracity, then, even if the change is "real," then the benefits probably outweigh the new risk.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
