Quote:
|
I read Richard Dawkins and constantly study science. My father was a dual honours student and electronics engineer. Science rather than superstition is my pick and hammer.
|
Dawkins is not my idea of a good scientist; he is a much better apologist for atheism than science. And he is not that good an apologist for atheism (he just happens to be the loudest).
My parents college degrees have little to do with my credentials. More on topic is my graduating
cum laude in physics (my bachelors). I started pursuing a double masters in physics and mechanical engineering, but the school was not set up to provide double masters program at the time, forcing me to choose mechanical engineering for my masters.
It's not that I believe EMFs pose no hazard. I just happen to believe that the hazard is exceptionally small, particularly in comparison to so many other known and proven hazards. I'll reference
my previous post on the subject. We are at a statistically provable higher risk from hundreds of other causes of disease and death. Being afraid of EMF in the quantities generated by an Insight is, statistically speaking, probably like worrying about a camel in Saudi Arabia, munching on grass near an airport runway, which happens to be contaminated with uranium dust produced by a mine 1,000 miles away, accidentally gets hooked on the landing gear of a 747, travels to your home town, walks to your house, spits in your eye and gives you cancer.
The world is a dangerous place and it always has been. Today's world is less hazardous than it was even 50 years ago. Yet people are still killed by heart attacks, lightning, meteorites, animal attacks, car crashes, viruses and bacteria, and other people. I'm not saying that there is nothing to worry about wrt EMF. I'm saying that if you worried about everything in proportion to the risk posed, EMF wouldn't even be on the radar (something I don't recommend standing in front of... it will melt the chocolate bar in your pocket). You're worrying about the wrong stuff.