Hacker News Reader

Comment by eclecticfrank | Hacker News Reader

That is still an ongoing debate [1] and one side of the argument is heavily influenced and funded by the telecom industry [2].

[1]https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... [2]https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...

View on HN

one side of the "debate" seem to be taken solely by Joel Moskowitz, who's cited in every article that promotes the message of "phone radiation is harmful"

The other side is funded and heavily influenced by the ”buy our Goji berries to shield your body from toxins and our shielding bracelet to stop harmful radiation from altering your chakras” quacks. There are no neutral parties in the argument

Guess who's more likely to have the funds to do proper propaganda.

The US government has the funds to sponsor all of your neighbors. They could conspire with the US government to pretend like they go to work every day, so that they fool you, who are the only sucker in your neighborhood whose life isn't getting paid by the US government.

I honestly don't think it matters who has funds to do what... :) The "natural health" industry is a multi-billion dollar industry as well, and is a much more insidious than the telco industry if you ask me.

Guess which side is more susceptible to low-quality propaganda.

You'll have to admit that one side has more to lose and more power than the other

In this day and age there's virtually no barrier to entry for spreading health disinformation and the quack health industry is huge, they sell a _lot_ of schlock. The fact that the people who are factually correct happen to also hold power doesn't matter since the kooks have no barriers to entry for spamming their disinformation across the internet and they're actually hard to avoid (as we see here). The people who are factually correct are generally at a disadvantage since the truth is boring and quacks can sell sensationalism ("your phone causes cancer!").

Sure, in the sense that there’s an ongoing debate between creationists and normal people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com