GeologyRocks

This blog post about WiFi dangers caught my eye recently. This kind of thing has been talked about in the past, but this time it seems to have been picked up by a few places. Apparently, the Professional Association of Teachers has called for investigations into the safety of WiFi. It highlights classic pseudo-science. There is no known mechanisms for radiowaves as weak as those used in Wi-Fi to harm humans. That isn't to say a cause might be found in the future. I think this story came to light after a teacher claimed of being ill after Wi-Fi was installed. However, I don't get this. There are similar frequency radiowaves of higher power going through the classroom all day, every day well before WiFi was installed - mobile phones, TV, Radio. I'm not dismissing the guy's claims completely, but to try and ban WiFi over this one incident is very, very odd.

This brings me onto this story on the BBC, that throws some doubt on whether organic is good for you and/or the environment. Apparently there is no solid scientific evidence either way, yet we are constanly told (or actually, it might be more accurate to say "we are lead to believe") that orginic is better for us and the environment.

What's the connection here? Science. Science is one of those things that doesn't provide "yes" or "no" answers (and if it does, it's usually laced with caveats). It's impossible to "prove" WiFi is safe. It is very, very difficult to prove Organic is good for you. My thought (and therefore the point of this rambling text) is therefore this. Are stories like these giving science a "bad name"? Is it stories like these that persuade the general public that scientists don't know what they are doing (they don't - that's why they do research)? Is this why people think Intelligent Designers might have a point? If an idea sounds "scientific", I think people will believe what they want to believe. If you like organic stuff, you will say the "science" shows that it is good. If you think mobile phones are a pain in the backside, you can use "science" to show that they could be harmful. What the science actually gives us are probabilities - not the easiests of beasts to understand (I know I don't).