Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
22. Using the word "impossible" is the fairly predictable signature of a scientific poseur.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:39 AM
Oct 2012

Mathematicians can justify occasionally speaking in terms of black and white. Scientists who do end up eating crow - very black crow.

This author is relying on the fact that cellphones do not create ionizing radiation as proof they don't cause cancer. Though his own research may provide evidence that contradicts the following, I suspect it's just carelessness.

"WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

(CNN) -- Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same 'carcinogenic hazard' category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Looks like a great article. Is it pro-viking? Quantess Oct 2012 #1
It's certainly not anti-Norse hootinholler Oct 2012 #5
:)) n/t JackN415 Oct 2012 #7
Thanks for that great link, hoot! hifiguy Oct 2012 #2
High school physics shows why it's impossible for cell phones to cause brain cancer? wtmusic Oct 2012 #3
Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. hootinholler Oct 2012 #8
You would have to know the old SciAm. wtmusic Oct 2012 #10
I suppose having read it regularly for the mid '70s to the mid 90's doesn't count then. hootinholler Oct 2012 #13
It's encouraging that they didn't mention extraterrestrials anywhere in the first paragraph. nt wtmusic Oct 2012 #15
Well nowhere did he mention gravity waves either hootinholler Oct 2012 #17
A friend of mine was a young oncologist marions ghost Oct 2012 #21
Using the word "impossible" is the fairly predictable signature of a scientific poseur. wtmusic Oct 2012 #22
Excellent article--thank you-- marions ghost Oct 2012 #23
Bookmarking for later read LongTomH Oct 2012 #4
SCIENCE! tk2kewl Oct 2012 #6
Great Catch. littlemissmartypants Oct 2012 #9
Absolutely a great article ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2012 #11
Actually it should be when opinions carry the same weight as facts or something similar hootinholler Oct 2012 #18
Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2012 #19
Empiracism back from the grave d_r Oct 2012 #12
Thought provoking but far from good science. It draws a false equivalency attributing Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #14
An interesting take on it. hootinholler Oct 2012 #16
Monsanto, Dow, Raytheon, DuPont, all the oil companies, GE, ad infinitum, have Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An incredibly thought pro...»Reply #22