There's one thing that nobody talks about concerning any perceived threat posed by electromagnetic radiation: physics. I hope everybody has enough education to know that something has to be able to affect something else before it can be said to have a negative effect. A thing can't negatively affect something else if it can't affect it at all, after all.
Now that we have that out of the way, somebody's going to have to explain how radio signals that don't even have enough energy to affect the atoms in your body are supposed to have a negative effect.
For the claim that something has to affect something else to have an effect? It's an a priori truth. It's true by definition. It's like saying water has to make something wet before that thing can be wet. There is no source.
view the rest of the comments →
cT9NlRLhxlyr ago
There's one thing that nobody talks about concerning any perceived threat posed by electromagnetic radiation: physics. I hope everybody has enough education to know that something has to be able to affect something else before it can be said to have a negative effect. A thing can't negatively affect something else if it can't affect it at all, after all.
Now that we have that out of the way, somebody's going to have to explain how radio signals that don't even have enough energy to affect the atoms in your body are supposed to have a negative effect.
2017Fallout ago
Where is your sauce for these claims?
cT9NlRLhxlyr ago
For the claim that something has to affect something else to have an effect? It's an a priori truth. It's true by definition. It's like saying water has to make something wet before that thing can be wet. There is no source.