Richard Clark wrote:

Did you read the material you offered yesterday? Science reveals all
results observed without going into a study mining for expectations as
you rightly offer here.

Not all of it yet. I confess to skimming the oncological studies -
although I did notice the tumor reduction outcome. Interesting.



Your link, like the data of the original post, offers enough data to
warrant informed discussion. The original post's data reveals a
howler of invention. That cast aside, it allowed a cascade of
spiritualism to dominate. Let me kick off the next side-thread of
belly-button contemplation and ask: "Why don't we see this data
discussed?"

A very good question indeed! I might speculate a bit here.

It is a big complicated world, and so many people are intellectually
lazy. It is easier to say "RF exposure is bad" than it is to actually
find out if it is. It is easier to say "liberals are the cause of all
life's problems" than it is to investigate and find that the last
liberal died in 1985.

So many people are capable of great suspension of disbelief. There are
people who protest vigorously against a cell phone tower in their
neighborhood because of "RF exposure", yet I don't doubt some of them
use cell phones. It's just a little thing - it can't be bad....

Look at radioactivity for instance. While people are scared spitless
over it, these same folks would put that granite in their houses,
sometimes tons of it, and can't even figure out that the granite comes
from a volcanic process that is mixing all sorts of minerals, including
hot ones.

But they are too busy watching "Beauty and the Geek or some other trash
on television. I dunno why, many of these folk are intelligent, yet
stupid at the same time.

It is apparently hard to get at the truth.

Let's not forget the propaganda effect. The tobacky industry for years
fought off the fact that tobacco is a cause of a whole lot of problems,
from cancer to emphasyma and more. Just as there is a whole lot of money
involved in both Cell phones and tobacco, there is a lot of reason to
discount any problems caused by them.

Now that being said, the "other side" can use those same examples to say
that the Cell phone industry equates with the tobacco industry. It does
not. Different industries, and just maybe the same tactics.

Sometimes I think it just boils down to some people want them to be
harmless, and nothing will convince them otherwise.

Another group wants them to be dangerous, and nothing will convince them
otherwise.

A third group wants actual facts, and probably ****es all of the others
off..

- 73 de Mike N3LI -