[laHiesh1]

I'm open to the possibility they're not safe if and only if the proper evidence is provided. As it stands, no peer reviewed evidence has being provided to show that there is a casual link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis.

[mcguire]

"Assume safety until shown otherwise" has not always been the best option in the past.

("Assume safety and viscously attack anyone who suggests otherwise" has some advantages, though.)

[laHiesh1]

I'm not proposing our default position should be to assume safety until proven otherwise. I'm proposing that if one wishes to claim something is not safe which is counter to existing scientific literature then one needs to provide the proper evidence. I'm not willing to easily discard existing literature on the basis of what someone said.

[sosilkj]

Thanks. I have better understanding of where you're coming from now.

[_0w8t]

For 100 years there was no peer reviewed journals that stayed that trans fats was bad. Yet it turned out they were really bad.

[laHiesh1]

Simply because there is examples of things that we thought to be safe but were in-fact harmful does not award you the right to make bold claims without the proper evidence. That would be a very slippery slope. If you believe something to be harmful, go and prove it.

Because we were wrong in the past about some things, I'm going to make the claim without evidence that visible light kills. Everyone who has ever died of cancer was exposed to visible light for very long periods of time. Don't expose yourself!