Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|