Well, first, I was responding to OP's complaint that the article "supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism." by pointing out that, in fact, it's not journalism, it's opinion.
Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe.
Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now?
>Well, first, I was responding to OP's complaint that the article "supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism." by pointing out that, in fact, it's not journalism, it's opinion.
I understand the distinction, but posting dubious opinion articles on news sites is still problematic. The Scientific American does not host articles espousing racist ideologies / vehemently blatant pseudoscience, by publishing this it is a form of tacit endorsement (despite it going in their opinion section).
>Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe.
The problem is that both the antiEMF and antiVaccine people are in fact not applying scientific principles to the issue. Cherry picking studies and opinions that support a given viewpoint is at best a rhetorical argument from authority, it is absolutely not a scientific approach to verifying a hypothesis.
>Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now?
The urgency comes in part from the fact that the 4G network is congested and at capacity in dense urban areas, and also from political dealings between US and Chinese telecom companies.
Cheers! I really appreciate your reply. Personally, I hate e.g. those "magic medallions" that are supposed to "absorb" EM and the like, but I'm not yet convinced that bathing our cities with EM is going to turn out to have zero health side-effects. In any event, the issue should be settled scientifically, eh? I was surprised to see this on SciAm's website, FWIW.
Likewise! I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I was also surprised to see it on their website, surprised and disappointed. The Scientific American used to produce wonderful articles and project guides, and I credit them with having helped jumpstart my love for technology. It is sad to see them publish low quality articles.
I understand your hesitation with regard to increasing the invisible radiation flux. I would likely feel the same way if I wasn't close to the field. From my point of view I would be far more worried about the materials used to produce modern phones and the disposal of the resulting industrial waste, the volatility of their batteries (particularly from manufacturers with shoddy QC), and the ethical considerations of sourcing the materials used.
I agree, Scientific American must be feeling the hurt but I don't want them to, uh, dilute their brand.
In re: EM, I have a better-than-average layman's understanding, but I'm certainly no expert. The specific thing that concerns me is the interaction of lots of sources with the urban environment. One or a few transmitters might be safe in the lab for N years' exposure, but dozens of transmitters operating in an environment with all kinds and shapes of metal and plastic and stone/concrete could conceivably lead to transients that have (relatively) severe side-effects.
I think, with examples like lead in gasoline and asbestos in insulation, etc., that we should be more cautious than we have been in the past. Especially when a given technology is more a marginal than a vital improvement to our lives.
In any event, you bring up a very good point: "... I would be far more worried about the materials used to produce modern phones and the disposal of the resulting industrial waste, ..." Indeed, there are a lot of problems "in line" before you get to "Cellphones gave me cancer!".
Second, the whole reason articles like this get published and read is that, in this case, one man's "alarmism" or "deception" or "paranoia" is another man's sober scientific caution. It's the same problem with GMOs. People are rushing to market with unproven technology to make money while insisting it's all perfectly safe.
Why not wait a century, do more research, and decide then? What's the urgency to roll it out now?