- Re: For clarity, the SA article was an opinion piece by Moskowitz himself
Posted by walter
on May 21, 2020, 11:21 pm, in reply to "For clarity, the SA article was an opinion piece by Moskowitz himself"
|
It doesn't start well. Comments in square brackets []. Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G Activists cite low-quality studies in arguing radio-frequency radiation is dangerous, but the weight of evidence shows no risk [Alert: "low-quality studies" - what ALL of them? This doesn't bode well] By David Robert Grimes on October 28, 2019 In a recent opinion piece for Scientific American, Joel M. Moskowitz warned of the ostensible dangers of radio-frequency (RF) radiation, stating bluntly that 5G technology could be dangerous, causing cancers and untold harm. Moskowitz concluded by insisting readers join his fellow activists petitioning against the new technology. His piece has resonated with the anti-5G movement, generating heated discussion online—but, alas, it is one that pivots on fringe views and fatally flawed conjecture, attempting to circumvent scientific consensus with scaremongering. [What's the language of democracy doing here: "fringe views", "attempting to circumvent scientific consensus"] Firstly, science is not conducted by petition or arguments to authority; it is decided solely on strength of evidence. [But on 'scientific consensus'? Already 'science' is being eroded'. Prediction: strength of evidence will be decided by consensus among selected scientists] And claims such as Moskowitz’s are a complete misrepresentation of the evidence base. Far from being a harbinger of medical woe, the scientific consensus points starkly in the opposite direction. ["The consensus points..."; shouldn't that be "the evidence points?..."] A multitude of quality studies conducted over the past few decades have found no measurable detrimental effect of RF radiation (RFR) on human health. [Re-alert: is he going to evaluate the totality of evidence, or are inconvenient studies simply going to be dismissed as 'low quality'? We'll see the detail] |