Re: Technology risk without safeguards

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 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