"Consensus" (Allgemein)

Dariusz Leszczynski, Donnerstag, 22.07.2021, 15:30 (vor 1036 Tagen)

There are strange things happening in EMF research that those not involved in might wonder and not understand.

Two groups of scientists, with entirely opposing views on interpretation of the available scientific evidence, claim to represent the current consensus opinions on EMF and health. For the one group (ICNIRP), the consensus is that there is no harm whatsoever when the safety guidelines are strictly followed. For the other group (represented by 32 scientists seen below), harmful/deadly effects of EMF exposures are already proven and people are dying from the exposures-caused health effects.

Who is correct? Users are free to choose between the two interpretations of science and decide, scientifically (?), what science interpretation they agree with. However, most of the users, no matter what they say, has no scientific knowledge whatsoever to decide which interpretation is correct and which is not. So, debates within the myriads of discussion groups on social media, that claim which group of scientists is more correct, in fact, do not know what they are talking about.

This is the reality of the current debate on EMF and health – twilight zone at the best…

On July 9, 2021 I have received the following message from Dominique Belpomme (emphasis added):

continue reading here:
The so-called ‘Scientific Consensus International Report’ by Belpomme and 31 co-authors is a perpetuation of poor quality research and scientific data, with the hope that when repeated again and again it will become a “better science”
https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/07/20/the-so-called-scientific-consensus-international-report-by-belpommme-and-31-co-authors-is-a-perpetuation-of-poor-quality-research-and-scientific-data-with-the-hope-that-when-repeate/

[Admin: Dariusz Leszczynskis Posting steht im Sachzusammenhang mit diesem Posting; 25.07.2021]