bummer. well, thats convenient for both of us.
exactly my point. thanks
haha, so true.
INconvenient. It is problematic for both of us. Convenience typically means it is beneficial.
I would never consider being wrong and unable to learn why to be beneficial, but to each their own.
Well, yes and no. Absolutely no studies had been done on either. They were considered "safe" in that no one had actually bothered to find out if they weren't. In the case of X-Rays it was "this thing is cool, let's see what we can do with them" and studying what they could do took precedence over whether they were actually safe to use or not. For smoking, tobacco companies made so much money in such a short period of time that they were able to actively prevent good science from being done. Once people actually started looking at both of them they realized their errors, including the long term effects (even after only short time trials).
No one is disagreeing about the possibility. I don't think anyone here has said nor posted anything to say absolutely that long term exposure is definitely safe (and if they did they are wrong). Read the studies that have been posted again, nothing says anything about whether there are long term effects or not.What the studies and those posting them have been talking about are the immediate effects. There are people that swear that wifi signals give them headaches and make them feel queasy. What the studies have proven is that it isn't the wifi causing the issue, that people feel sick around dummy transmitters that don't produce any radiation and don't feel sick when there is a transmitter nearby that they aren't aware of. If you think wifi signals give you a headache, science says you are wrong. This says absolutely nothing about the long term effects and anyone who would even dare to suggest that it did is performing the same bad science that charlatans use to sell their proverbial snake oil.
lets put an end to this, okay? you didnt tell me where i was wrong, tho.
alright then.
).
Because you didn't elaborate, you just made a very vague "the wifi situation is like x-rays and smoking" which it absolutely isn't. Without knowing anything about your thought process all I could do was say "that is wrong" and ramble on for a very long time about all the possible ways it is wrong.Once you made additional statements trying to make your case I was able to narrow in on the specific points which are problematic.
With what part exactly? You made a lot of statements.I agree that people wrongly believed that x-rays and cigarettes were not harmful.
I mostly agree with you, but Freud is probably the worst example of psychologists as scientists that you could have chosen. Darn near everything he believed has been thoroughly debunked at this point as hokum. Same goes for Jung and pretty much everybody of that era.
There's presently no evidence that these radio waves are causing health problems, nor is there at present a plausible theory under which they harm humans. And as they're not comprised of ionizing radiation we can definitively state that they don't cause cancer.
There is a plausible theory under which EM radiation harms humans. Some EM radiation certainly does, e.g. a microwave oven can be pretty harmful, or UV light. But I guess you're talking specifically about wifi frequencies. I'm not worried about those either, but still, "no plausible theory at the moment" does not imply "impossible" -- that would be a "proof by lack of imagination".
X-Rays are completely different from the EMR that's coming off of wireless devices. They're high energy and have been known to cause damage to the DNA the same way that cosmic raise and UV does. Microwaves themselves are normally safe, but the applications that we use them for are much, much higher powered than what you'd normally encounter and are generally surrounded by a Faraday cage. A Microwave oven is usually measured in terms of watts whereas wireless devices are generally measured in milliwatts.
The point is that until somebody comes up with a plausible mechanism by which these rays are dangerous, it isn't even worth studying. Without that scientists can't even formulate a hypothesis to test let along collect useful data. We've been bombarded by much more dangerous cosmic rays for the entire period our species has existed without any meaningful impact. Similarly, the rates of skin cancer from UV have never been particularly large.
Generally, the shorter the wave length the higher energy and more dangerous it is. Microwaves are mainly problematic because we've found them to be useful enough to purposefully create at higher concentrations than you'd normally find in nature. Apart from man made sources, there just isn't much exposure to that under normal circumstances.
