Re: Technology risk without safeguards

[Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte () gmail com>]

> ...who THINKS he MIGHT have identified
> something to the contrary does not instantly
> disqualify the thousands of studies that have
> already been completed on the topic
I am not a doctor. The majority of results you refer to is equivalent to
the Sun' impact on human situated on Earth's surface (benign RF).
Unfortunately, there is no research to demonstrate potent RF's impact on
human which is equivalent to Sun' impact on human in outer space except for
reporting the rare accidental occupational overexposure scenarios.

Exposure to powerful RF (eg. Magnetron + horn antenna) is no different from
pressured water coming from a fire hydrant or coming from welding torch.
EMF is invisible giving room for underestimating its powerful embodiment
while water and flame are visible to give us a clue to head for safety.


On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and
> > * only reinforce thenotion 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
> > consequences.
> >
> > My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he
> > may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how
> > scientific progress is achieved.
>
>  This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say
> patently incorrect.
>
> Assert a general hypothesis of "Does X increase the chance of Y to
> occur?", and a sufficient amount of science is done.
>
> Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and
> half says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't
> know enough."
>
> However, let's say that 95% of the science says the hypothesis is false,
> and 5% says it is true. We DO know enough in this case to state with
> reasonable certainty that X does not increase the chance of Y. The
> description then is "Although we cannot absolutely rule it out, we so far
> find no evidence that X causes Y." Then, we go back and do more science
> based on what we have learned so far, and learn some more.
>
> One doctor, who THINKS he MIGHT have identified something to the contrary
> does not instantly disqualify the thousands of studies that have already
> been completed on the topic. His findings go into the pile with all the
> other findings, and they get properly evaluated. An easy analogy : If you
> have a 50 gallon drum of blue paint, and you toss in a drop of yellow, the
> entire thing doesn't turn green.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:53 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>
> wrote:
>
> > ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush randy () psg com wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship,
> > > > does not mean that there isn't any.
> > >
> > > just wow
> > >
> > > and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese
> >
> > I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science
> > is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I
> > agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that
> > links RF with any kind of bodily harm.
> >
> > 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
> > consequences.
> >
> > My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he
> > may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how
> > scientific progress is achieved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sabri