[georgia_peach]

"Goto Considered Harmful" was Dijkstra. Aside from that, you've spilled a lot of ink for a weak ad hominem.

Beating normies over the head with physics 101 explanations--ones that don't even begin to address the complexity of the subject at hand--to silence perfectly reasonable lines of questioning, is harmful. Exceedingly harmful.

[klodolph]

You're right, it was Dijkstra.

The comment is about how "that's harmful" is a terrible comment. It's just such an awful, terrible type of comment that I've let some ad hominem in there.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Actually I understand the positions of both of you. Some comments can be harmful when they reinforce false beliefs that have negative consequences for some aspects of our lives. At the same time, this expression is overused. And it remains to be seen if it's valid in this particular case or not, because we simply don't have enough data. Clearly there is an obvious and strong relationship between the influence of radiation on objects and wattage (having factored in the distance), but it's not the only factor - the wavelength is another obvious one, and the relationship between the wavelength and the type of material another one. So yes, reducing it just to wattage can be seen - depending on your pov - as either simplification or mistake.