[Ti] Laptop Health Warning!

[Steve Wozniak]

At 5:31 AM -0500 2002.11.23, MBurke6225 at aol.com wrote:

>"Probably" is the operative word.  The difficulty with the resolving this
>health question rests with our lack of understanding of all forms of
>electromagnetic frequencies.  Sure, we have a cursory knowledge, but clearly
>we do not understand the motor behind this force.  Simply stated we do not
>understand the cause, therefore how can we say, with any certainty, that we
>understand the effect?  If science has taught us anything it is the simple
>fact that observations are subject to the scientific method, and that
>methodology is only as strong as our weakest understanding.

"Probably" is a good word here.

The effect of EM radiation on humans has been a topic of intense study and research.

It is very easy to perform controlled experiments in this field. When such experiments are performed, it's appropriate to question positive findings (A causes B) but not the reverse. By controlling the environment very strictly, and by using thousands of test subjects, extremely tiny effects can be detected. An effect might be observed on 100% of the test subjects but might only be a part in a million in the real, uncontrolled, world. The smarter the researchers, and the more exhaustive controls they use, the tinier the effect that they can detect. Worse yet, when minute effects are detected, they might actually work the reverse way in real life. That's why some guidelines go back and forth. It's like, A causes B, but not if you drink milk and blink. In most controlled experiments, everything done to enhance the intrinsic validity of the experiment (it 'really' happened) counters its applicability to the real world, the extrinsic validity.

So when a negative effect cannot even be discovered, it 'probably' doesn't exist. When it is discovered, it may not really exist to any strong degree.

"Significant" has a statistical definition that does not mean 'strong connection'.
-- 

Regards,

Steve  (is tv wake zone?)