Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 4, 2022.
I'm reading "can" and "think".
So they're not even sure.
Whelp, this is the wackiest crank junk I have ever seen posted to a tech site
What nonsense LowIQanon FUD.
First, this particular "EMF is bad, mmkay" guy is a KNOWN QUACK of the kind that only fools, Trumpists, and anti-vaxx kooks fall for. There's no SCIENCE being done here. He posts this crap every 5-10 years just to get attention and generate clickbait. Stop falling for it.
Second, actual credible scientists have brought us everything we count on today, including a longer life and the ability to fall for and then post the most ignorant, clueless nonsense.
Indeed. I really think Hilbert should delete this article from the front page. It's...well...beneath him and this site's proven fine standards.
Has this paper been peer reviewed and approved?
I mean, this is one of the most important steps in the scientific method.
Without validation from other tests and studies, it means nothing.
He knows the audience he's cultivated
Yesterday you got a thread closed because you started insulting everyone else.
Are you going to try that again on this thread?
I think you mean to say that yesterday I shut down a font of misinformation by people who can't be bothered with facts. And so yes, the hope is that here too I can have the same effect.
Shall I start selling stickers and magic crystals that "block" the harmful part of the signal for a crap ton of money ?
Anyways, um... I bought a whole bunch of shungite rocks, do you know what shungite is? Anybody know what shungite is? No, not Suge Knight, I think he's locked up in prison. I'm talkin' shungite. Anyways, it's a two billion year-old like, rock stone that protects against frequencies and unwanted frequencies that may be traveling in the air. That's my story, I bought a whole bunch of stuff. Put 'em around the la casa. Little pyramids, stuff like that.
Quite the judgmental type you are mate. Do you think I'm anti-vax? (nope had all essential vaccines), not a Trump fan. Political atheist. I'm old enough to have experienced a multitude of politicians and they all work for the banks, do everything for the banks, and go to war for banks. Even Trump is a puppet.
Telegrapher's disease was what we now call influenza. Before that, it was really rare. Yes and only people working the radios and telegraphs suffered from it. Almost as rare as diabetes until the industrial revolution and the invention of the lozenges press.
I'll say it again. There is far too much money involved in Wifi tech for it to be dangerous. Just like petroleum. They ain't never giving us zero-point energy, nuclear fusion, name your power source, it ain't happening until the petrol runs out.
Keep trusting, fortunately, there are people with their heads out of their arses and are vigilant. Sometimes they get it wrong, but mostly no. The covid stuff they were bang on about.
Some truth is uncomfortable for some, so scientists have to "make do" to present it more " sellable ".
I catch your drift .
In such cases, there should be a link to the original paper with peer review.
Without source, it's difficult to assess the credibility of the research. Well, it's easy if it's a complete bs.
I've seen too many papers with abstracts completely unrelated to the described experiments and their results. Or the research method was completely off, samples statistically weak, conclusions based on post-experiment thoughts rather than the initial hypothesis.
When reading such headline, I'm like "screenshot or it didn't happen". There's no proof by authority. The problem is that the science gets more and more complex, esoteric. Effectively, often times we have to rely on smarter people to tell if something is true or not. That's why there's something like peer review - can other people come up with the same conclusion by reproducing the experiment? Yet, with some statistics knowledge, one can surprisingly often judge the paper quality, even from different field of science.
For example I've read quite a lot of papers about studies on harmful effect of blue light. News articles used to be assuming more than in the abstract itself, even opposite to it. To make the paper appear to be more worthy of publishing, the abstracts tend to inflate the measured effects. They can have more conclusions than it would appear from the experiment itself - described in the very same paper. I've seen sample sizes of 20 or even 2 people...The way of selecting the test group can be flawed too, There are papers with no control group too. Conclusions extrapolation is also too frequent. You can find many on f lux website. For example the paper was on much faster aging of retina exposed to blue light. You could see "blue light kills your eyes" news, yet the paper described intense light, like direct sky or blue LEDs exposition on eyes of people with lenses replaced after cataracta. And these were old lenses without the appropriate near-uv filters, which are present naturally in the eyes, and in the new type artificial lenses - after the problem became better known. Was the paper wrong? No, it described an important issue, however not applicable to the most of us. Does it mean that blue light is harmless? Nope; it's been proven that bright light exposure can damage the eyes, especially when it's longer, and shorter waves (blue, violet), can make it worse. On top of that there's melatonine release disruption. In general - no, but there are specific scenarios when it can hurt us in a specific way. It's rarely simple.
We shouldn't believe the research because it's aligned with our beliefs, or dismiss it just because we don't like it. We should be skeptical, aware of the context, and know how the scientific method works.
Strong claims need strong evidence.
The peer reviews for this should be worth a read
Where did you find that gear in Elden Ring?
God those studies made those ridiculous gunnar glasses really popular when all it did was put an orange filter over glass.
Haven't been checking in on this thread for a few days, and apparently I've missed good popcorn opportunities.
Soon: Popcorn's dangerous for you, since it can be hot, and hot is bad, it contains almost only carbohydrates, which are bad for you, and if you use the microwave to prepare it, it's even more dangerous!
https://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/ne...text=Aug.,work in microwave popcorn factories.
We may have Alzheimer's, but at least we don't have Alzheimer's.
You have to propose to Malenia with the right flowers, then dodge her attacks, with nothing equiped, for 69 hours and 42 minutes straight. Then some dude will rush in screaming that this has to be a conspiracy, have a heart attack and die, and you can loot him.
I personally think Radagon/the galaxy supercluster thing was tougher due to cheese hitboxes on them...