> Yes, appeals to authority aren't much use in the present climate. So, that's why he needs to offer convincing evidence. It sounds like he offers none (I haven't read it, just relying on the summary above).
My point was more that a physicist may be an authority on the technology itself, but would not necessarily be an authority on the affects it has on a biological system. That's why it has to be a multi-discipliniary approach rather than people being immediately dismissed for not being physicists.
Why would you think that a physicist would be more of an authority on causes of human disease than an epidemiologist?
> The claim that these are new innovations that "biological scientists can't keep up" is just obviously false on its face so what is he talking about?
Ok his wording is pretty over the top here, but he literally points to a study which suggests as much.
> I'm not surprised at all to discover one of them thinks 5G causes cancer
It was actually the IARC working group for evaluating carcinogenic risks to humans. He was merely referencing their study and findings.
And actually, once again, they're not saying that 5G causes cancer. They're saying that the evidence from their specific study suggests it might, but it's not conclusive, and that further studies are required to get better evidence either way.
Look I'm not saying that the evidence suggests 5G is harmful, I'm just taking issue with some of the specific dismissals presented above as I think they selectively cut out parts of the quotes that actually change their meaning somewhat.
> In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm.
You missed the exception he mentions. "IARC is the outlier in this respect, having determined in 2011 that EMFs are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/)
They concluded that "With 'limited evidence' for carcinogenicity in humans based on an increased risk of glioma – a malignant brain tumour – among heavy users of mobile telephones, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were classified as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'"
This suggests more studies are required from a biological perspective in order to form an conclusions either way, which is his point in the opinion piece.
> Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference.
The full quote is;
"Furthermore, a comprehensive Canadian review of the same evidence states that some of the new RF-EMF technologies—such as innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’—are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up—that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...)
The point he's making here, once again, is that this is a multi-disciplinary problem and we need further study from a biological perspective as there is not enough evidence to conclude either way.
You seem to think that, because he's not a physicist, that he has no idea what he's talking about.
> ...I think it's pretty fair to label them based off of that one comment. For content that abhorrent, any number of occurrences above zero is enough to tell what kind of person a user is.
Whilst I agree that the comment you refer to is absolutely abhorrent and should be treated as such, I also strongly believe that people have the capacity to change and that we as a society should be pushing for that change.
If that comment was from a number of years ago, any number of things could have happened to change that persons view of the world and the people in it.
If you have someone who's so misinformed that they hold these horrendous views then casting them aside forever is, in my view, the opposite of what we should be doing.
In the physical world we tend to put people in to the 'correctional' system (whether it works as a correctional system is very much up for debate), but in the virtual world, we just censor them and let them go away and reinforce their views with each other in their own space.
We'll never get a better society if we don't challenge the nasty parts of it and work out why people go down that path and, critically, forgive them if they change.
The issue is more complex than just a bigger pipe.
As a site owner, you pay a service provider (or cloud hosting service or whatever) to offer you a certain amount of bandwidth to host your site.
The problem comes when other ISP's implement their fast lanes and traffic from your site doesn't get equal priority to traffic from another site who has paid that specific ISP to prioritise their traffic when serving their customers.
So you end up having to pay multiple ISP's to prioritise your traffic on their networks. Your site could appear slow even if you've paid your own service provider for a high bandwidth.
From what I understand, the difference is that even if you pay more for that faster internet, you may still not load sites as fast because they haven't paid the ISP for their traffic to be prioritised over others.
Also if you run a website and have paid for a decent connection to serve your site through, you may still not be able to serve that site as fast as you can without paying additional ISP's to prioritise your traffic.
My point was more that a physicist may be an authority on the technology itself, but would not necessarily be an authority on the affects it has on a biological system. That's why it has to be a multi-discipliniary approach rather than people being immediately dismissed for not being physicists. Why would you think that a physicist would be more of an authority on causes of human disease than an epidemiologist?
> The claim that these are new innovations that "biological scientists can't keep up" is just obviously false on its face so what is he talking about?
Ok his wording is pretty over the top here, but he literally points to a study which suggests as much.
> I'm not surprised at all to discover one of them thinks 5G causes cancer
It was actually the IARC working group for evaluating carcinogenic risks to humans. He was merely referencing their study and findings. And actually, once again, they're not saying that 5G causes cancer. They're saying that the evidence from their specific study suggests it might, but it's not conclusive, and that further studies are required to get better evidence either way.
Look I'm not saying that the evidence suggests 5G is harmful, I'm just taking issue with some of the specific dismissals presented above as I think they selectively cut out parts of the quotes that actually change their meaning somewhat.