919
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
919 points (100.0% liked)
Political Humor
1502 readers
14 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not sure if everyone who comments have actually read anything on the topic. While I'm not worried myself due to the sheer number of null studies that exist, he's not just dreaming this up. There are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific studies that claim to show that there indeed is such an effect. One selected randomly below:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11517-024-03238-1
Oh please..."at a distance of 13cm" from a high powered transmitter. They saw a statistical difference of a minute effect, in a small animal. And if you actually look at the data, they did the statistics incorrectly.
There are researchers at U of Toronto using microwaves to break down the blood brain barrier to get cancer drugs into the brain. It's not easy, and what they have shown is that even when they can do it, the barrier can repeatedly repair itself.
People who leave scientific links on the internet without understanding them are just as bad as RFK Jr.
What in my post makes you believe I don't understand the posted study? Did you not see the "While I'm not worried myself due to the sheer number of null studies that exist" part?
I was a developer and researcher at a mobile phone manufacturer for 15 years. We kept well up to date on this topic.
So we can agree you know nothing about primary biomedical research.
I'm sure some idiots strapped a rat to a radio tower at some point, to prove some stupid point.
no you dont, Medical/biology research isnt equal to being a phone researcher. you dont even study the same fields. do you have a degree in biology? did research in biology, even botany? if you dint you know nothing about it.
I don't want to be that guy, but do you think the manufacturers would be telling anyone if there really were issues?
Actually, yeah. I never got the impression anyone was trying to hide something. Mobile network & phone manufacturers sponsored research that was freely published. There was a time when it wasn't as clear as it is today that there were no long term issue risks.
Example here: https://dceg.cancer.gov/fellowship-training/training-resources-for-fellows-and-staff/radiation-epidemiology-course/cell-phones-cancer-risk.pdf
Thank you. For those of us who know nothing about that, I think a comment with a bit of a different premise could help. Like:
(Disclaimer, I have spent zero years at a mobile phone manufacturer and have done little reading on the topic)
Just pointing out two things that many people don't know about statistics and that I think are helpful when judging a larger body of scientific literature and listening to non-experts like RFK Jr.
First, the term "statistically significant" does not mean "big" or "meaningful". It means "unlikely due to chance", where "unlikely" is defined by the researcher, typically as a low-ish threshold like "with a probability of at most 5%". This is also the threshold that researchers use when they compute a 95% confidence interval, like in the paragraph quoted above.
Second, with a 5% threshold, studies investigating the same phenomenon (like the effect of radio waves on rabbits) have a 5% chance to find a statistically significant effect even if that effect does not exist. As a consequence, scientists don't regard it as proof of a phenomenon, when one study (or even several) out of a large number of studies finds something to be statistically significant. Instead, they require that this finding is replicated in independent replication studies (ideally ones that were conducted with a pre-registered protocol and a much larger sample).
Relevant xkcd, because of course there is one:
Image source: xkcd (no. 882)
Exactly. I got the impression from the posts that were here when I made mine that people had never even heard of this being something that has been "debated" in the scientific community but just some random idea RFK Jr had himself.
IIRC there was real worry in the late 90s due to the thermal effect mobiles back then had, which in the 00s transformed into electromagnetism and the blood-brain barrier instead. The thing that really gives away the non-scientific backing for those still trying to push this is that they keep trying to blame newer versions of the mobile networks "4G bad vs 3G!" "5G bad vs 4G!" when in reality every newer network standard has less penetrating energy and also, due to towers being much closer spaced, less transmitting energy overall from the phone.
NMT back in the 80s however? I'd probably be somewhat cautious today tbh.
Yep. Also, famously, a statistics/psychology professor was once quoted as saying the only reason you don't find a statistically significant difference is because we're "too damn lazy to drag enough people in." The larger the sample size, the less of a difference is needed to hit that 5% mark. So if you aren't "lazy," you can just add more folks to your study and be more likely to find a 'significant difference' that you can then publish.
My statistics professor would rerun experiments that hit the 5% (p<0.05) mark and need it less than a 0.001 or 0.005 just to waggle his dick at others, saying his findings were a lot more reliable than theirs.
I must confess to not understanding your anecdote here. Pure chance might give you a p<0.05 when your sample size is low - but that disappears as the sample size grows larger.
I don't want to dig out the math figures, because god knows they're hard enough to scribble freehand, but as you add more samples, the difference between your null hypothesis and sample average shrinks in regards to what establishes a p<0.05. Let's just use not-real numbers: if a sample of 100 people has a difference of 5 units from the null hypothesis, and has a p value of 0.1, a sample of 10,000 with a difference of .1 unit might have a p value of 0.02. In the quote (that I can't seem to find now), the essential wisdom to take is that if you dragged in enough samples, you could find a statistically significant difference because your null hypothesis would never be exact, so even the smallest of differences would generate a low p-value. It's why whenever you see a p-value, you should definitely see an effect size estimate nearby, such as cohen's D.
Here's a paper outlining some of this in much better words than I have.
Thank you for the link - that's a very interesting paper. I've taken Statistics twice (two different engineering degrees) and still need to reread that a few times to "get it"!
N=21
Eh, fuck you for trying to sanewash this. This is the lead of the fucking health and human services. That used to mean more than, "Yeah, I'm no doctor, but I think I read this article once. Might've skimmed it. Ask that Lemmy guy, he'll back me up."
Maybe you should take a course in the English language?
Which part did I have wrong?
How do you get "sanewashing" from me saying that I'm not worried due to the sheer amount of null studies that exist on the topic?
Or do you mean it should be kept a secret that this is something that has been studied since the 90s? Did you even know?
https://dceg.cancer.gov/fellowship-training/training-resources-for-fellows-and-staff/radiation-epidemiology-course/cell-phones-cancer-risk.pdf
"He's not just dreaming this up," except that he's not some podcaster who should be allowed to talk out of his uninformed and inexpert asshole and be excused by the country or any of its citizens because sometimes he says something that research kinda semi holds up.
You didn't read the link I posted, right? Or at least didn't understand ...
Yo, my guy, you're the one clearly not reading or internalizing words. Do better.
Wifi does not use any of those frequencies.