Through its uncritical coverage of the purported radiation hazards of cellphones — taken up by noted toxics alarmist Devra Lee Davis as her latest crusade — the New York Times is taking chances with its credibility. Author Randall Stross seems unfamiliar with the tendency of companies to warn (on lawyers’ advice) against supposed risks they have good reason to consider non-existent, as in pharmaceutical package inserts and many other contexts [David Oliver, earlier, more]
5 Comments
Can you say junk science? The microwave radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing. In other words it does not have the energy to cause cellular damage.
Indeed, largely ignoring the overwhelming evidence that electromagnetic radiation does not increase the risk of brain cancer the article references an unidentified study showing an increased rate of brain cancer in the presumably cellphonophilic 20-29 year old age group
The funny thing is that most young people do not use their cell phones for making phone calls. They are either texting or using it for Internet access. Maybe if they start finding an increase in cancer of the thumbs I will believe their hysteria that cell phones are dangerous. 🙂
The NYT lost its credibility long ago. Its slogan is now”All the news that fits our agenda”
” the New York Times is taking chances with its credibility.”
What is this “credibility” of which you speak? I didn’t know they still had any.
“Can you say junk science? ”
Let’s see – after the past and continuing claims that “Breast Implants cause [fill in the blank]”, “Toxic Black Mold” cause [fill in the blank], Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Sick Building Syndrome, DDT causes cancer, vaccines cause autism, Man-made global warming is going to cause the oceans to rise 50 feet, Category 10 hurricanes and for the male sexual member to go limp, and the glorious claims of homeopaths and neuropaths that they can cure all cancer, bunions, bad breath and [fill in the blank], I think that the answer is “No.”
Yeah, like 1932, with Walter Duranty.