Re: Wireless dislike | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Jenny Guy (jenstermeister![]() |
|
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT) |
I think I understand how science works. My point is that I don't see this as a resolved issue; you can find many reputable scientists and their data on both sides of this issue (unlike something like global warming). So I'm surprised to see people treating it as a done deal, like we're sure this is not a problem. Again, not an issue I'm tackling in my life at this point -- I'm sending this via wifi. Obviously this isn't the venue to try to resolve it, but I am pretty surprised to see flat statements that it's known to be safe. On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Tom Smyth <tom [at] sassafras.coop> wrote: > > > No definitive proof that they are harmful is not the same as proof that > they are safe > > I think this is a misunderstanding of how science works. Proving that > something is safe is actually theoretically impossible. The best we can do > is try repeatedly to find harm, and after trying hard enough, we conclude > that it is safe. That is absolutely the case with wireless signals. > > > > > > >
- Re: Internet Service [was Wireless dislike], (continued)
- Re: Internet Service [was Wireless dislike] Jenny Guy, July 24 2016
- Re: Internet Service [was Wireless dislike] Sharon Villines, July 24 2016
- Re: Internet Service [was Wireless dislike] Mary English, July 25 2016
- Re: Wireless dislike Tom Smyth, July 23 2016
- Re: Wireless dislike Jenny Guy, July 24 2016
- Re: Wireless dislike Sharon Villines, July 24 2016
- Re: Wireless dislike Mary Baker, Solid Communications, July 25 2016
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.