It's difficult not to be contemptuous of the author and pretty much all the commenters.
1. The people who have moved there didn't ask to be written about. They're not a lobby advocating sweeping changes in laws. They've experienced health problems; they self-diagnosed; they took a course of action that seemed wise; they're happy.
A journalist decided they were kooks who could be used to fuel an easy story. So WTF is up the ass of the author or any of you?
2. There's an astonishing amount of historical ignorance on display. If you read the history of pretty much anything that has been found dangerous and banned, you will discover that there were legions of studies showing that they were perfectly safe. Review the periodicals of the era, and you will find John Fendersons bellowing about the science.
You might want to google the name "John Ioaniddis" and learn a few things about the state of research as we know it.
3. The level of categorical statement here is laughable. While I don't make any brief on behalf of the people who think power lines emit dangerous levels of radiation, what qualifications do any of you have to say that there's no possibility that anyone could be affected to any degree?
You know this how?
Having had two partners who were systematically misdiagnosed-- told that they could not be having the medical complaints they were expressing-- I take a dim view of that sort of sweeping denial. My ex-wife had a problem that hit about one in 60,000 people; an ex turned out to have a 1 in 10,000 issue.
This does not mean that you put the policy recommendations of every Christine Maggliore or Jenny McCarthy into law-- or that you endorse the woo of every John Harvey Kellogg.
It does, however, mean that you remember that the history of science-- especially medicine-- is the process of discovering that what we believed we knew was wrong. And that it is most appropriate to react to a theory based on its probable negative impact on people.
Whacky as he was, Kellogg's ideas weren't fatal. Max Gerson, who claimed his diet could cure cancer, on the other hand, was.
At the point where we consider passing laws to ban all devices that emit radiation, it's appropriate for you all to get your panties into this twist. Short of that, you might want to STFU and be glad that you don't have health conditions that involve chronic pain.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mohinder Suresh.
What an astonishing collection of jackasses
1. The people who have moved there didn't ask to be written about. They're not a lobby advocating sweeping changes in laws. They've experienced health problems; they self-diagnosed; they took a course of action that seemed wise; they're happy.
A journalist decided they were kooks who could be used to fuel an easy story. So WTF is up the ass of the author or any of you?
2. There's an astonishing amount of historical ignorance on display. If you read the history of pretty much anything that has been found dangerous and banned, you will discover that there were legions of studies showing that they were perfectly safe. Review the periodicals of the era, and you will find John Fendersons bellowing about the science.
You might want to google the name "John Ioaniddis" and learn a few things about the state of research as we know it.
3. The level of categorical statement here is laughable. While I don't make any brief on behalf of the people who think power lines emit dangerous levels of radiation, what qualifications do any of you have to say that there's no possibility that anyone could be affected to any degree?
You know this how?
Having had two partners who were systematically misdiagnosed-- told that they could not be having the medical complaints they were expressing-- I take a dim view of that sort of sweeping denial. My ex-wife had a problem that hit about one in 60,000 people; an ex turned out to have a 1 in 10,000 issue.
This does not mean that you put the policy recommendations of every Christine Maggliore or Jenny McCarthy into law-- or that you endorse the woo of every John Harvey Kellogg.
It does, however, mean that you remember that the history of science-- especially medicine-- is the process of discovering that what we believed we knew was wrong. And that it is most appropriate to react to a theory based on its probable negative impact on people.
Whacky as he was, Kellogg's ideas weren't fatal. Max Gerson, who claimed his diet could cure cancer, on the other hand, was.
At the point where we consider passing laws to ban all devices that emit radiation, it's appropriate for you all to get your panties into this twist. Short of that, you might want to STFU and be glad that you don't have health conditions that involve chronic pain.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mohinder Suresh.
Submit a story now.