applejuicy

In related news, the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 are being renamed to reflect more clearly the bidirectionality of time. 

2018 will now be known as 2019 v1. 

2019 will now be known as 2018 v2. 

2020 will now be known as 2018 v2+1. 

Mike, thank you for this article, which keeps well-reasoned and balanced perspective almost to the end, but then falls prey to a common error when you write, "science is true if you believe it or not." No, "science" is not a conclusion, but rather an enquiry — a never-ending process of observation, hypothesis, testing, peer review, etc., which never reaches a final conclusion. Most significant conclusions the scientific process reaches are later improved upon, thereby showing the previously-accepted conclusions to be less true — or in some cases entirely wrong (see Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”). There are countless reasons that scientific theories once considered "proven" are later disproven, and one of the common ones in the arena of testing and measurements is that at any given point there's only so much that we know how to test — only so many clues that we know to look for or have the capacity to measure. A true and good scientist remembers that we don't know how much we don't know, and thus would never claim anything to be "proven" one way or the other, but rather would say, “the highest quality current research seems to suggest X," and leave it at that. Lay people (and, even more so, "scientists" themselves) evaluating scientific assessments need to understand that there is no "proof" in science; proof exists only in mathematics. Science at its best can steer us closer to the truth, but it can never prove that we've arrived there. Regarding the science on the impacts of RF radiation on health, it's early yet. None of this tech has been around long enough (at this level of saturation) for us to have a strong body of very long-term data, so it will be interesting to watch this space 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 years from now. Bottom line: it’s fair enough to say that the highest quality current research hasn’t found strong evidence of health risks from typical levels of RF exposure for most people, and that in itself should be reassuring to the masses who aren’t going to give up their iPhones anyway but might’ve made themselves sick by worrying about it. But to take that step further to say “science is true if you believe it or not” is to urge people to put blind faith in a process that is often helpful but never perfect and, more to the point, known to be very vulnerable to human limitations — and not infrequently fatally flawed (after all, DDT was "proven" safe, until it wasn't).