Mike Wuerthele said: Mercola is a quack, though, and a fraud. We've spoken about his lack of qualifications earlier in the thread. He also has zero training regarding radiation in any form, EM or ionizing.
Maybe, maybe not. But, he's been right about several things the government and medical establishment have been wrong about for decades (ex: the health factors around fat and cholesterol). Nearly every doctor or nutritionist I've talked to - most super-smart, and very well trained - has been really, really wrong on this stuff.
IMO, what is in question here, is whether such training and qualifications will actually lead to the right conclusions, or make one overconfident within the wrong paradigm. Might this be one more such area?
"if you take the smartest people in the world and you teach them the wrong thing, they become amazing at doing the wrong thing" - Shawn Stevenson
Nope. This guy is on the bad side of the Dunning-Kreuger graph in regards to this subject matter.
And, regarding selling quackery:
FTC, in 2017, ordering the cessation of selling indoor tanning beds, and promoting them as healthy. Million-dollar fines associated.
I hear what you're saying, and having looked at some of his stuff (and articles about him, etc.), it is clear he has been involved in some questionable things and practices in the past.
But.... he's also been right on some things that nearly the entire medical industry, most doctors, various federal organizations (FDA included), and such have been wrong on. (The context where I was first introduced to him.) So, maybe his quackery-tendencies of chasing after some odd threads and such have paid off.
But here's, the thing... the whole line of argument that I and a few others have been following, is that maybe conventional wisdom and training are in the wrong on this one. ***IF*** that is the case, then such training isn't going to lead one to correct conclusions, nor will traditional authorities, articles, studies, etc. on the issue.
(Same as the massive body of work for decades about how fat is bad for you, or that consuming cholesterol raises your cholesterol levels, etc. And, like here, being wrong on this has had a massive impact on the health and lives of, now, generations of people.)
Given how recent and naive we are in terms of our understanding of biological impacts of the environment are on us, I guess I'm urging caution here (rather than the relative certainty the article seems to propose). I sure hope - given the direction technology is moving - that it is safe.
I hear what you're saying, and having looked at some of his stuff (and articles about him, etc.), it is clear he has been involved in some questionable things and practices in the past.
But.... he's also been right on some things that nearly the entire medical industry, most doctors, various federal organizations (FDA included), and such have been wrong on. (The context where I was first introduced to him.) So, maybe his quackery-tendencies of chasing after some odd threads and such have paid off.
But here's, the thing... the whole line of argument that I and a few others have been following, is that maybe conventional wisdom and training are in the wrong on this one. ***IF*** that is the case, then such training isn't going to lead one to correct conclusions, nor will traditional authorities, articles, studies, etc. on the issue.
(Same as the massive body of work for decades about how fat is bad for you, or that consuming cholesterol raises your cholesterol levels, etc. And, like here, being wrong on this has had a massive impact on the health and lives of, now, generations of people.)
Given how recent and naive we are in terms of our understanding of biological impacts of the environment are on us, I guess I'm urging caution here (rather than the relative certainty the article seems to propose). I sure hope - given the direction technology is moving - that it is safe.
Like I've now said about 10 times, I don't want a Navy search radar in my bedroom, and you're welcome to put the safety line where you'd like it. It doesn't have to be in the same place as mine.
Regarding "some things he's been right about" -- I don't know a single thing about waterbeds other than they exist. And, as such, I don't comment on them, nor present myself as an expert about them. Mercola is a general practitioner, and has had precisely zero training or education on any form of radiation at all, including, apparently, infrared, given his tanning bed fiasco. So, he shouldn't put himself forward as an expert either.
But, if one rails against RF, and doesn't curtail other, far, far more injurious risk factors, that's a failure of comprehension of the magnitude of the risks. For example, I've met pack-a-day smokers who think that RF is going to give them cancer.
Mike Wuerthele said: Regarding "some things he's been right about" -- I don't know a single thing about waterbeds other than they exist. And, as such, I don't comment on them, nor present myself as an expert about them. Mercola is a general practitioner, and has had precisely zero training or education on any form of radiation at all, including, apparently, infrared, given his tanning bed fiasco. So, he shouldn't put himself forward as an expert either.
Yes, but you don't have to be an expert on waterbeds to know if one gets punctured, you'll end up with a wet floor. Mercola is almost certainly more knowledgable about biology than either of us, and especially about newer understandings of biology and environmental impacts given his more recent work.
More to the point, if RF expertise is based on old ionizing understandings of whether damage might occur or not, then it is rather irrelevant expertise (for this purpose), as that is what is even being discussed by people like Mercola. Maybe he (and others) are wrong, but they are talking about a whole different level of impact/mechanism.
And, maybe even further to the point... (given the recent link/article), Mercola seems to be researching and quoting the work of others who have more expertise in these areas. He doesn't have to be an RF expert to do that. He just has to listen to other 'expert witnesses' and make judgements based off them, just like every juror on a trial. Expertise in an area certainly helps, but one can do good research without having a formal education or certifications in some particular area involved.
Mike Wuerthele said: But, if one rails against RF, and doesn't curtail other, far, far more injurious risk factors, that's a failure of comprehension of the magnitude of the risks. For example, I've met pack-a-day smokers who think that RF is going to give them cancer.
Well, yes and no. For example, I'm sure when I jump in my car to go to work, I'm taking on a fairly high risk. But, I have to get to work. If I'm smoking a cigarette when I get home from work, maybe it would be best if I cut that out, even if I still take the risky car-ride each day.
Look, I do use BT headsets from time to time, for example when I'm cycling and want to effectively use the time yet be relatively safe. But, why ALSO use a BT headset when I'm working around the house or sitting at my desk, when wired work just about as well? If Mercola (and those he cites) are correct, that's an unnecessary risk I don't need to add to the pile.
People have been using cell phones and BT headsets for years now, but I think my more recent concern is that people are now starting to literally wear such things night and day. A few hours here or there is much different than 24x7. Whether that breaks some problematic threshold, depends on whether you're just worried about ionizing levels, or worried about other impacts as outlined in that linked article, or other epigenetic type impacts we've yet to have studied enough.
A basic look at biology should have one in awe at the little machine/factories/computers operating in each of our cells. I'd say basic common sense should say it would be more likely sending some kind of signal through there would have *some* kind of impact, rather than none. The question is whether it's harmful, either in some very direct way (ie. ionizing) or in some more subtle way we're just starting to discover.
"But, in terms of minimizing, it's all about distance. These signals are relatively low in power, so the main one you'd want to think about is the phone against your ear, the BT ear-bud (though that's even lower power), or sleeping with a WiFi router on your night-stand."
Absolutely right, and the author fails to deal with this. An iphone on your nightstand gives you far less RF exposure than next to your ear on a call.
"And, I'd probably take the opposite stance of your conclusion, Mike. Until the science catches up and tells us something meaningful, I'd take a more cautious route of minimizing exposure."
Right on. People love to claim that we're "anti-science" if we worry about a possible problem that hasn't yet been "proven" by mainstream scientific research or the industry, yet countless times in history we see how the "experts" failed us e.g. US health authorities for decades saying tobacco is safe to smoke and chew.
"But, in terms of minimizing, it's all about distance. These signals are relatively low in power, so the main one you'd want to think about is the phone against your ear, the BT ear-bud (though that's even lower power), or sleeping with a WiFi router on your night-stand."
Absolutely right, and the author fails to deal with this. An iphone on your nightstand gives you far less RF exposure than next to your ear on a call.
"And, I'd probably take the opposite stance of your conclusion, Mike. Until the science catches up and tells us something meaningful, I'd take a more cautious route of minimizing exposure."
Right on. People love to claim that we're "anti-science" if we worry about a possible problem that hasn't yet been "proven" by mainstream scientific research or the industry, yet countless times in history we see how the "experts" failed us e.g. US health authorities for decades saying tobacco is safe to smoke and chew.
FTA: "Without delving into a basic physics lesson about time, distance, shielding, and wavelengths,"
and...
"A wireless router is worst case 0.02 watts per KG at about six inches away from the device, and drops dramatically with distance. Those 50 wi-fi networks you can see from your computer? You're probably looking at a total of 0.1 watts per KG from all the sources combined."
And three more times. So, yes, the author does deal with this. Several times.
You're welcome to put the safety line where you want, based on whatever you want. But, I'm not certain that you actually read the article given that you missed the four five times that I brought the relationship between exposure and distance up.
Comments
FTC, in 2017, ordering the cessation of selling indoor tanning beds, and promoting them as healthy. Million-dollar fines associated.
But.... he's also been right on some things that nearly the entire medical industry, most doctors, various federal organizations (FDA included), and such have been wrong on. (The context where I was first introduced to him.) So, maybe his quackery-tendencies of chasing after some odd threads and such have paid off.
But here's, the thing... the whole line of argument that I and a few others have been following, is that maybe conventional wisdom and training are in the wrong on this one. ***IF*** that is the case, then such training isn't going to lead one to correct conclusions, nor will traditional authorities, articles, studies, etc. on the issue.
(Same as the massive body of work for decades about how fat is bad for you, or that consuming cholesterol raises your cholesterol levels, etc. And, like here, being wrong on this has had a massive impact on the health and lives of, now, generations of people.)
Given how recent and naive we are in terms of our understanding of biological impacts of the environment are on us, I guess I'm urging caution here (rather than the relative certainty the article seems to propose). I sure hope - given the direction technology is moving - that it is safe.
Regarding "some things he's been right about" -- I don't know a single thing about waterbeds other than they exist. And, as such, I don't comment on them, nor present myself as an expert about them. Mercola is a general practitioner, and has had precisely zero training or education on any form of radiation at all, including, apparently, infrared, given his tanning bed fiasco. So, he shouldn't put himself forward as an expert either.
More to the point, if RF expertise is based on old ionizing understandings of whether damage might occur or not, then it is rather irrelevant expertise (for this purpose), as that is what is even being discussed by people like Mercola. Maybe he (and others) are wrong, but they are talking about a whole different level of impact/mechanism.
And, maybe even further to the point... (given the recent link/article), Mercola seems to be researching and quoting the work of others who have more expertise in these areas. He doesn't have to be an RF expert to do that. He just has to listen to other 'expert witnesses' and make judgements based off them, just like every juror on a trial. Expertise in an area certainly helps, but one can do good research without having a formal education or certifications in some particular area involved.
Well, yes and no. For example, I'm sure when I jump in my car to go to work, I'm taking on a fairly high risk. But, I have to get to work. If I'm smoking a cigarette when I get home from work, maybe it would be best if I cut that out, even if I still take the risky car-ride each day.
Look, I do use BT headsets from time to time, for example when I'm cycling and want to effectively use the time yet be relatively safe. But, why ALSO use a BT headset when I'm working around the house or sitting at my desk, when wired work just about as well? If Mercola (and those he cites) are correct, that's an unnecessary risk I don't need to add to the pile.
People have been using cell phones and BT headsets for years now, but I think my more recent concern is that people are now starting to literally wear such things night and day. A few hours here or there is much different than 24x7. Whether that breaks some problematic threshold, depends on whether you're just worried about ionizing levels, or worried about other impacts as outlined in that linked article, or other epigenetic type impacts we've yet to have studied enough.
A basic look at biology should have one in awe at the little machine/factories/computers operating in each of our cells. I'd say basic common sense should say it would be more likely sending some kind of signal through there would have *some* kind of impact, rather than none. The question is whether it's harmful, either in some very direct way (ie. ionizing) or in some more subtle way we're just starting to discover.
and...
And three more times. So, yes, the author does deal with this. Several times.
You're welcome to put the safety line where you want, based on whatever you want. But, I'm not certain that you actually read the article given that you missed the four five times that I brought the relationship between exposure and distance up.