This isn’t a solved problem. It doesn’t require a physics explanation, as in the first link, for there to be a hazard identified at a health level. Take the Zika virus for instance: there is an association between that and birth defects, but we don’t know why: the physical cause let alone the biological cause. However, it’s a hazard and you would be stupid not to take action on it
The RationalWiki articles (last two) don’t even try to construct a compelling argument against the hazard of phone radiation. They simple push the thesis that there is woo and phobia on the matter. That doesn’t mean that irrationality makes them wrong about the topic of irrationality.
the downvoting on my post is alarming. I paid 5 karma points to reply to a downvoted thread because this is really odd behaviour. I was bringing attention to points made elsewhere. If the points are true, then it is not bullshit. If the points are false, then the authority of the source (wikipedia) is such that it ought to be discussed. Finally, if it is true but it’s an information hazard, that’s worthwhile matter of discussion on LessWrong of all places.
You’re solving for a supposed problem that does not exist at all.
This isn’t a solved problem. It doesn’t require a physics explanation, as in the first link, for there to be a hazard identified at a health level. Take the Zika virus for instance: there is an association between that and birth defects, but we don’t know why: the physical cause let alone the biological cause. However, it’s a hazard and you would be stupid not to take action on it
The RationalWiki articles (last two) don’t even try to construct a compelling argument against the hazard of phone radiation. They simple push the thesis that there is woo and phobia on the matter. That doesn’t mean that irrationality makes them wrong about the topic of irrationality.
the downvoting on my post is alarming. I paid 5 karma points to reply to a downvoted thread because this is really odd behaviour. I was bringing attention to points made elsewhere. If the points are true, then it is not bullshit. If the points are false, then the authority of the source (wikipedia) is such that it ought to be discussed. Finally, if it is true but it’s an information hazard, that’s worthwhile matter of discussion on LessWrong of all places.
It isn’t a problem at all. There is no solid evidence of risk.