Check at the bottom
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
> Joel M. Moskowitz
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
> Joel M. Moskowitz
Does he have industry ties that we should be aware of, reputation issues, conflicts of interest, something else?
The man been trying that "cellphones give you cancer" since at least 2009, with his earliest attacks being closer to some new age metaphysical bullshit, and only later he started to pull some scientific argument.
He has no real science background, no medical background, he is a psychologist. His "academic network" includes people going into homeopathy, antivaxing, GMO and something bordering on new age and conspiracy cults.
Why UC Berkley still keeps him around, I have no idea.
[0] https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...
The article uses personal insult (calling the guy a charlatan) but does not say much about why he disagrees with those positions.
I see no companies on the name of Joel M. Moskowitz, no products sold, no industry sponsors.
On the other hand, I see a guy with no industry ties being slandered online by no reason, weird.
I don't know anything about the guy, if anyone can chime in on why his opinion is not trustworthy I would like to learn more.
[0] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Sc...
Argue it then. Many readers will have never heard this name.
I took the numbers from the country I'm familiar with (The Netherlands, which has excellent cell phone penetration), and no matter how I look, if I correct for age, they've only been decreasing. The Dutch registry is also one of the most complete of all European countries.
See https://imgur.com/a/FiNrVCQ, x-axis is year of diagnosis, y-axis is Incidence per 100.000. I used European Standardized Rate correction to correct for changes in age distribution, which is standard here. Top blue line is total, the other lines all denote different origins.
Edit: I was also prompted to spend ~30 seconds researching who ACSH are since everyone critiquing Moskowitz in this HN thread seem to be posting links from that website alone. Didn't take long to discover they're a privately funded pro-industry advocacy group.
He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer
https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-stil...
After reading his ideas, I think we should all feel a little lucky that Trump hasn't made hime the head of the FCC.
edit: posting as primary reply, because the point is important, but was downvoted because of how obliquely it was made.
I hadn't heard of ACSH, so checked their about page:
> a pro-science consumer advocacy organization
A consumer advocacy org. Not a scientific research council, as —I would argue—their name highly implies.
Their about page also says:
> We do not represent any industry. We were created to be the science alternative to “news”
The top-3 links in the references section of their Wikipedia page that seem to contradict this line:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/0...
- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-counci...
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/magazine/obam...