Hacker News Reader

Comment by ulf | Hacker News Reader

A killer argument in those cases (though not always applicable) is to ask the people if they are smoking. If so, they do not have any reason to be afraid of any environmental influence, since smoking will definitely kill them first.

View on HN

Well, that could backfire. I would imagine that the parents complaining about the WiFi radiations are very probable to be non-smokers.

This will almost certainly backfire.

Fears like this one are all about the power of suggestion. They are irrational. Don't try to deploy rational arguments against an irrational person. [1]

In this case, bringing up smoking is a big mistake, because now you're subtly training people to associate WiFi with something that (a) is now known to be deadly; (b) is the subject of extensive public health campaigns, taxes, legal sanctions, etc., and (c) was widely thought to be okay for decades, was even advertised by doctors as good for your throat. [2]

It's all about the subtext. Go buy some copies of the local tabloids and study their technique. If you put a picture of a fluffy bunny next to a photo of a barking dog, a photo of an angry cop, a photo of a weeping parent holding a dying child, and a blaring headline ("RABID RABBIT RAMPAGE"), you can get people to be deathly afraid of fluffy bunnies. Pavlov and Skinner were too simplistic, but they were not 100% wrong.

So don't try to argue that WiFi is "much safer than these terribly dangerous things that you do every day". Don't mention dangerous things. Emphasize the evidence for safety, talk about the very low powers involved, talk about the kinship between microwaves and radio waves [3] and emphasize that these waves have been used for communications for decades without a problem. Then talk about the advantages.

[1] Lesson two: Every human is irrational to some degree.

[2] Or by people in white coats, anyway. Though I'm sure many of them were real doctors. Lesson three: Being a doctor is neither a hallmark of rationality nor a proof against avarice.

[3] But stop short of mentioning gamma rays in this context, because everyone knows they can cause you to become the Incredible Hulk.

I've made similar comparative harm arguments on a number of occasions. For example: the higher fat content in the organic milk [1] will kill you long before trace amounts of evil scary chemicals in inorganic milk will.

Strangely, arguments like that never seem to convince anyone. Anyone susceptible to the power of reason is already convinced.

[1] 1%/2%/3% milk has a wide range of acceptable values. I.e., 3% means "between 2.8% and 3.5%" or something like that. Organic milk is always at the top of the range, which makes it taste better. (It's also pasteurized at a lower temperature.)

I drink organic milk myself, never having considered milk that deadly. I think most people consume only a minor part of their fat through milk, dont they?

I'm a vegetarian who does regular, strenuous exercise. I probably get a lot of my fat through whole milk, which I drink with protein powder. I go through about a gallon every 3-4 days.

I've probably gotten most of my fat intake from milk at times; I have a home espresso machine and use whole milk for lattes, and if I'm really busy I tend to both skip meals and drink lots of coffee.

Definitely a pathological case, though. Also, unhealthy.

Fat is not a poison. Your body needs it.

In moderation. Once you get past the point of moderation, it is harmful. At least 35% of the population is way past that point.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf

You're confusing dietary fat with your own body fat. The thinking for a long time was that dietary fat caused body fat, but that's not the case anymore: "Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a solution." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12566139

Sugar, on the other hand, does turn into body fat.

Near as I can tell, the study suggests simply that 2000 calories (18% fat) will give you the same long term bodyweight as 2000 calories (40% fat). However, drinking 3.5% fat organic milk will give you more calories (and make you slightly fatter) than 3% fat regular milk.

Yes, the study suggests that dietary fat is not the cause of body fat. Fixing total caloric intake is how to measure that.

Drinking higher fat milk will make you fatter if you don't need those extra calories and you don't reduce calorie intake elsewhere in your diet. But that's a statement about calorie intake, not fat intake. For me, personally, I need both the fat and the calories.

Body needs a lot of things that can become poisons if you overdo them.

Constant drinking of water (forced or induced by failure of some physiological mechanism i.e. taste) will eventually lead to liver failure and death by poisoning. IIRC Chinese used this as a kind of torture/execution tehnique.

You'd have to drink a tonne of milk for this argument to hold. Steroids in non organic milk, and more so in beef, on the other hand are a much larger threat.

Has that actually been shown? It would be ironic to use one unfounded fear to dismiss another unfounded fear, itself raised to dismiss a third unfounded fear.

There is alot of research. The university I went to did alot of it.

Here is one article: http://www.alive.com/1301a4a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=455

I'm surprised I got down voted for speaking out about the truth:)

This article provides no evidence whatsoever that trace amounts of steroids or antibiotics in milk are harmful. It merely suggests they might be present.

Do you know what the measured difference is in steroid concentration between organic and inorganic milk?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com