this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
226 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59472 readers
3815 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be fair, it's not completely made-up. There is a body of evidence that suggests that even non-ionizing EM radiation may have so-called "biological effects" in humans.
Organizations like the Environmental Health Trust have been banging the "cellphones cause infertility and cancer" drum for years, and cites numerous studies on their website.
Of course, much of this research is of questionable relevance to real-world use cases involving actual phones and actual humans as opposed to, say, a bunch of rats being exposed to low-power microwaves in a lab for hours on end, but it exists nonetheless.
Environmental Health Trust is a single issue organization founded to specifically claim that radio waves are dangerous.
They are alarmists bereft of credible arguments and should be treated as such.
Certainly, but the existence of this research is why countries like France are taking this precautionary approach.
There is research that exists suggesting that the Nazis are currently plotting their return from a moon base.
France should take the precautionary approach of nuking the dark side of the moon.
Equally valid.
I get that you're trying to be funny, but no they're not exactly "equally valid".
The WHO lists RF waves (including those from cellphones) under category Group 2B of possible carcinogens, along with a bunch of other stuff.
Are they being overly cautious? Almost certainly, yes. However, the idea is not inherently ridiculous.