Is there any truth in the proposition that 5G is harmful to health? 

Many thanks. 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/#

Here's the rebuttal: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/  This author is a physicist and cancer researcher at Oxford university.

Note that both our links are opinion pieces.

Edited July 5, 20205 yr by StringJunky

Many thanks for the link. Yes, the fact that both are just opinion pieces illustrates how so-called "truthers" like Mark Steele can patrol their chosen agendas the way they do. This is more an internet problem than a purely science-based one. Still, speaking as a layperson/armchair observer here, it might be helpful if scientists took on Steele and his ilk more directly. There's no chance of getting such folk (and the majority of their camp followers) to alter their views by reasoned debate, of course - not when these views are buttressed by emotional convictions. All the same it would surely help the many undecided, even the merely disinterested. Just an observation.  

1 hour ago, GeeKay said:

Many thanks for the link. Yes, the fact that both are just opinion pieces illustrates how so-called "truthers" like Mark Steele can patrol their chosen agendas the way they do. This is more an internet problem than a purely science-based one. Still, speaking as a layperson/armchair observer here, it might be helpful if scientists took on Steele and his ilk more directly. There's no chance of getting such folk (and the majority of their camp followers) to alter their views by reasoned debate, of course - not when these views are buttressed by emotional convictions. All the same it would surely help the many undecided, even the merely disinterested. Just an observation.  

Whatever the quality of an argument and evidence, it's down to the reader to corroborate it. You can lead a person to a book but you can't make them think.

 

 

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Whatever the quality of an argument and evidence, it's down to the reader to corroborate it. You can lead a person to a book but you can't make them think.

This is a valid point. . . as far as it goes. It's just that it's not enough any longer. In the age of the internet it's no longer a matter of leading a person to a book; rather it's a case of leading the book to the person.     

 

 

On the other hand it doesn't really bother me to let the willfully ignorant wallow in their fears.

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

On the other hand it doesn't really bother me to let the willfully ignorant wallow in their fears.

There's a literal silver lining in this if you're heavily invested in Reynolds Wrap.

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's a literal silver lining in this if you're heavily invested in Reynolds Wrap.

Good point! The conspiracy theorists are making money off this, why can't we?

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Good point! The conspiracy theorists are making money off this, why can't we?

Didn't you invent a clear aluminum coating? We could hide it in some cheap hairspray cans. That way, folks are protected from catching the 5G, but the FBI can't tell. 

Aren't you all glad that you found science as an interest/vocation? We could all easily be victims to this kind of BS if we didn't know the science basics.

On 7/6/2020 at 5:30 PM, zapatos said:

On the other hand it doesn't really bother me to let the willfully ignorant wallow in their fears.

It should bother you - if only because the "wilfully ignorant" tend to vote into office the kind of dickheads who are currently doing the rest of us NO favours whatsoever. Anyone care for a re-run of 2017? 

Then there's this. . . 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html

Edited July 7, 20205 yr by GeeKay

4 hours ago, GeeKay said:

It should bother you - if only because the "wilfully ignorant" tend to vote into office the kind of dickheads who are currently doing the rest of us NO favours whatsoever. Anyone care for a re-run of 2017? 

Then there's this. . . 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html

Well, it doesn't bother me. I'm tired of wasting my breath on those who refuse data and reason. I've got better things to do.

14 hours ago, GeeKay said:

It should bother you

The problem here is that those people do not respond to reason, so debating them is pointless. There is literally nothing you could say to them that would change their world view. As the old saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position that hasn't been arrived at by reason in the first place.

18 hours ago, GeeKay said:

It should bother you - if only because the "wilfully ignorant" tend to vote into office the kind of dickheads who are currently doing the rest of us NO favours whatsoever. Anyone care for a re-run of 2017? 

I could see mounting a competing emotional appeal to divert these folks from the emotional stance they've taken on 5G. If they're so worried about radiation, but don't listen to reason about scientific areas like telecommunications and climate change, maybe we can emphasize how much more radiation they'll be exposed to if we don't do something to stop the planet heating up. An appeal to fear may work where an appeal to reason isn't understood.