> For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz , a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe.
I know this is just a staff writer but it automatically makes him a nut, or at best destroys all credibility. There "it must magically be bad and I'll p-hack until I find a link" people are ridiculous. You can't come at a problem, especially large scale problem like this, from a "I need to prove" angle and get objective findings. He's a crazy with an agenda.
Read the rest of the article, there's been concrete evidence to his claim since 2009 when he wrote a review. That's what this is supposed to convey.
Also I think the 2018 study he mentions is pretty damning too and it's unaffiliated with him and government-sponsored. This isn't allegations you can just wave away as being amateur or low-profile, not from institutions like this.
Trust me, I am not a 5G opponent or notorious science sceptic. I study medicine and have an affinity for technology. But your approach to this is just super counter productive and exactly what he is referring to right at the beginning when stating that a lot of people with very little knowledge on the physics behind this are outraged.
>lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer.
You don't have to look at anything cell phone related to figure out this is bs.
Just look at brain tumor statistics, age-adjusted incidence rate of malignant and/or non-malignant brain and other CNS tumors has been decreasing.
Skimming it, there's all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theorist - coverups and tobacco industry playbook and accusation of using a nuclear physicist as a prop. There's a much higher burden of proof to take something like this seriously that's not met here.
I'll add that I find it pretty telling how hard HN comes down on some "conspiracy theories" - anything buy ultra orthodox covid views e.g., but loves to dive into something like this that has all the right people playing the right parts.
I know this is just a staff writer but it automatically makes him a nut, or at best destroys all credibility. There "it must magically be bad and I'll p-hack until I find a link" people are ridiculous. You can't come at a problem, especially large scale problem like this, from a "I need to prove" angle and get objective findings. He's a crazy with an agenda.