I find it suspicious that they make so many claims that are not easily tested for. So if someone takes on the task to test any one of them and finds it to not be real the people pushing this conspiracy theory will just say "well you only disproved one thing, but there are 30 others", and no one has the resources and time to disprove all 30.
It is basically an undisprovable claim, and that means it's probably bullshit.
What are you talking about? The paper by Martin Pall has close to 100 references. Do you think he just pulls his claims out of thin air? Most of what he mentions in his paper are already established effects (they are already proven).
If I were to take one of those studies and disprove it would you agree that the threat is not real? Or would you dismiss the fact that one is wrong, but assume the rest of them are real?
By making 100 claims of danger instead of 1 they make it impossible to disprove because people like you will always assume that even though some of the claims are disproved the others must be true.
So it is frankly a waste of time and money to even disprove one, because it is not cheap or trivial.
I am not arguing that I have disproved the claims. I am merely pointing out how it is suspicious.
The day people like you can understand that we can begin to take an intelligent look at it. We can decide which claim is worth studying and if it doesn't pan out we can collectively put the controversy to rest.
No, I don't think you read the paper. It is a meta-analysis of established literature, not some sort of claim factory.
Second, I don't think you understand how science works. You seem to think science is some sort of competition to debunk claims which others find inconvenient. This is a leftist type of thinking.
You say: "frankly a waste of time and money to even disprove one". This is not how science works. By making that statement you are implicating yourself as a biased researcher. That's not science.
In science you have a hypothesis, you then test your hypothesis, and your test will either show your hypothesis to be true in the real world or not.
There is no "putting time and money to disprove claims", there is only unbiased science; the testing of your hypothesis for truth.
What you need to seek is truth, not deliberate falsifications because you find something personally unpleasant to hear.
Pall does not "make 100 claims of dangers". Ha made exactly ONE: the VGCC or voltage gated calcium channels. He did a meta-analysis of the published literature, summarized it in his paper, and showed a new very probable hypothesis which could explain the observed effects in those papers.
What we should to next is test this hypothesis, not try and prove nor disprove anything.
The fact that we have so much research that shows harm already, is enough to raise concern even WITHOUT having this ONE specific hypothesis tested. In fact we have overwhelming evidence for harm at this point, and I'm sure in time Pall's hypothesis will be tested also. This is how science works.
I'm trying to explain to you what the real definition of science is.
Are you aware that most industry funded research shows no harm, and that most independent research shows harm.
Which one do you think is more likely to practice real science, and which one is doing the type of science where you "put time and money to disprove things"?
view the rest of the comments →
canbot ago
I find it suspicious that they make so many claims that are not easily tested for. So if someone takes on the task to test any one of them and finds it to not be real the people pushing this conspiracy theory will just say "well you only disproved one thing, but there are 30 others", and no one has the resources and time to disprove all 30.
It is basically an undisprovable claim, and that means it's probably bullshit.
qwop ago
What are you talking about? The paper by Martin Pall has close to 100 references. Do you think he just pulls his claims out of thin air? Most of what he mentions in his paper are already established effects (they are already proven).
Here's another list of 67 papers, with observed effects ranked by transmission power:
https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png
Is it possible your comment is the one that contains the bullshit?
canbot ago
You don't seem to understand my argument.
If I were to take one of those studies and disprove it would you agree that the threat is not real? Or would you dismiss the fact that one is wrong, but assume the rest of them are real?
By making 100 claims of danger instead of 1 they make it impossible to disprove because people like you will always assume that even though some of the claims are disproved the others must be true.
So it is frankly a waste of time and money to even disprove one, because it is not cheap or trivial.
I am not arguing that I have disproved the claims. I am merely pointing out how it is suspicious.
The day people like you can understand that we can begin to take an intelligent look at it. We can decide which claim is worth studying and if it doesn't pan out we can collectively put the controversy to rest.
qwop ago
No, I don't think you read the paper. It is a meta-analysis of established literature, not some sort of claim factory.
Second, I don't think you understand how science works. You seem to think science is some sort of competition to debunk claims which others find inconvenient. This is a leftist type of thinking.
You say: "frankly a waste of time and money to even disprove one". This is not how science works. By making that statement you are implicating yourself as a biased researcher. That's not science.
In science you have a hypothesis, you then test your hypothesis, and your test will either show your hypothesis to be true in the real world or not.
There is no "putting time and money to disprove claims", there is only unbiased science; the testing of your hypothesis for truth.
What you need to seek is truth, not deliberate falsifications because you find something personally unpleasant to hear.
Pall does not "make 100 claims of dangers". Ha made exactly ONE: the VGCC or voltage gated calcium channels. He did a meta-analysis of the published literature, summarized it in his paper, and showed a new very probable hypothesis which could explain the observed effects in those papers.
What we should to next is test this hypothesis, not try and prove nor disprove anything.
The fact that we have so much research that shows harm already, is enough to raise concern even WITHOUT having this ONE specific hypothesis tested. In fact we have overwhelming evidence for harm at this point, and I'm sure in time Pall's hypothesis will be tested also. This is how science works.
canbot ago
What rock do you live under?
qwop ago
I'm trying to explain to you what the real definition of science is.
Are you aware that most industry funded research shows no harm, and that most independent research shows harm.
Which one do you think is more likely to practice real science, and which one is doing the type of science where you "put time and money to disprove things"?
Laserchalk ago
I think they have the resources and time to test 30 different things before it's approved for public use.
Meme_Factory_1776 ago
Yeah. right. Keep thinking that. They will pass it and approve it to protect the companies from lawsuits. That's all aproval is.