There are many logical fallacies in this post.
>It cites what you call "scientific literature", and points to the fact that
other so-called "scientific literature" is funded by the wireless industry.
I would like to see these papers. Merely asserting that such peer reviewed
papers exist without any citation is weaksauce.
A simple google scholar search for "cell phone cancer" lists many studies
about the issue:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=cell+phone+cancer&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
If you read through some of them, you will see that it is fraught with
statistical biases; for example, one of the papers listed on the first page
of the google scholar search query I provided you with outlines in its
abstract that there may very well be a correlation between living proximity
to cell phone towers (which are obviously much more powerful than a cell
phone) and cancer rates. However, it also stated that there are many
confounding variables (socioeconomic status, health, fitness levels, smoking
rates etc) that it makes the conclusion highly suspect, statistically
speaking.
> So, for the more "normal" subjects, I usually just choose to rely on media
organizations that have proven to be credible, instead of the ones that I've
repeatedly caught lying
This begs the question: by whom has it been 'proven' credible? You? Well,
you, like me or any other person on this planet, are susceptible to personal
biases and prejudices.
>I've seen proven examples of how "scientific literature" can be manipulated
by people connected to the same industry that has to gain with the
commercialization of a product
You are certainly *not* incorrect at all to be suspicious about scientific
research that have been funded by corporations or other businesses that have
some economic interest. However, this is why science has certain redundancies
built into the system; peer review is what keeps the bastards honest. People
get famous by disproving certain scientific hypotheses or theories; a
personal incentive for fame is well established. And, as every good computer
scientist/engineer/scientist knows: garbage in, garbage out. Bullshit can
usually be smelt far away in the scientific community - but not all systems
are perfect - an unfortunately, people will still get away with publishing
misleading information, which brings me to your citation:
>- http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html)
Natural News is most certainly *not* a reliable source of information. I
don't understand how someone like you, who seems intelligent and bright, take
anything from this "news" outlet seriously. Mike Adams, the author of that
article, thinks vaccines are a conspiracy and cause autism (an assertion that
has been falsified by peer reviewed literature), denies the existence of
AIDS, believes in homeopathic treatments, believes that the Sandy Hook and
Aurora shootings were government false-flags and thinks that Barack Obama's
birth certificate is a forgery. We're talking about a man with either some
serious psychological issues or a man who is shilling on behalf of the
conspiracy theorist movement. Yet you have the audacity to believe that he
offers a more reliable account of political issues than say, Reuters or the
Guardian or Democracy Now? I don't know man, I think Adams and Jones have you
by the balls. You've been had.
>People, also, already knew, for years, before the actual process by which it
occurs was found, that smoking could case lung cancer. And, started advising
others not to smoke, because of that. (But, if people want to wait for the
actual process by which EMR causes brain tumours to be found, before stopping
using their cell phones, then, it's their choice...)
Nice strawman. Your assertion (yes, assertion, its not even an argument) is
about as valid as the following:
"We know that seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the earth. Therefore,
Mars has unconfined aquifers of salty water underneath its surface." What
you're doing is implicating one event or idea that is likely true to a
completely unrelated one that is yet to be falsified. Yes, who understand
that a causal relationship between smoking and cancer rates has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, but the same *cannot* be said of EMR.
>I don't even have to read any scientific data.
Well, that's your right, and in a free society you are entitled to remain
ignorant. But you will be taken advantage of by others because you simply do
not understand the pertinent issues at hand.
>I remember, very well, hearing from an electrical engineer, that I know,
years ago, before I even started reading this kind of warnings, how worried
he was that this devices, that emit a radiation so high, that make it
possible to communicate with antennas miles away, were used right next to our
brains, when - he says - that the harmful effects of such type of radiation
on living beings are a well known concern among people who deal with
electrical and radio equipment.
Anecdotal evidence, argument from authority and personal incredulity. I don't
doubt the sincerity of the engineer in question; however, the veracity of his
claims do not support the scientific consensus that the association between
EMR and cancer is unknown/unlikely.
>And, like it says in the article, there are countries already starting to
restrict the use of cell phones.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/french-government-bans-advertising-of-mobiles-to-children-1299673.html)
And, it doesn't seem to me that they would be doing this, if there was not a
good reason to be concerned about them.
It seems as though their intentions are sincere - in which case, perhaps it
*is* better to be overly cautious than not. But then we will be talking about
EMR and children vs EMR and adults, which are two distinct issues. I don't
know what the scientific consensus is regarding EMR and children; maybe their
is a correlation, maybe there's not, there was nothing in that article to
suggest otherwise. The only statistic they offered was "an increase in brain
cancer of five times if children use mobile phones". But this is unhelpful -
an increase of five times might mean an increase of brain cancer rates from
1% to 5% (a relatively significant proportion of the population) or from
0.01% to 0.05% (a much smaller proportion).
>It has also already been said in the Parliament in my country, by a member
of the Telecommunications Institute, that the EM field of a cell phone can,
indeed, cause cancer.
Again, argument from authority.
>But, I'll let everyone look for, and choose to believe in, the studies they
want to...
Science isn't about "believing" in anything. That implies that to accept a
certain hypothesis or theory then you can only use faith. But that's
obviously wrong. Certain falsifiable ideas can only be in one of three
states: proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rejected beyond a reasonable doubt
or indeterminate. I think the claim that EMR causes cancer is clearly in the
indeterminate/rejected status because there is simply not enough good science
to prove the claim *beyond a reasonable doubt*. Now, I'm not saying that we
know with 100% certainty that is is likely to be true - rather, with the
EVIDENCE at hand, at this current time, it is likely that such a claim is
false.
