These days the world is grappling with the problem of the Covid-19 pandemic, but I am noticing an uncontrolled increase in another problem: the decidedly false news.
Someone came up with the idea of linking this pandemic with the antenna installations for the 5G network, a topic on which I am quite expert, and this led me to face a colossal mountain of bullshit, in the sense that I was immediately angered, every time I read an imaginative theory on how such antennas were actually harmful, bla ... bla ..., the plot, bla .. bla ..
I have seen photos of dead birds, for example, due to a tree blown down by the wind, used to "prove" that they had actually been killed by 5G antennas.
Analyzing the amount of data existing on this topic I realized, and it must be said to be honest, that there are two studies conducted by accredited institutes, which would demonstrate the existence of a correlation between the emission of electromagnetic waves (EM) and some effect on living beings.
The two institutes are the Ramazzini Institute and the National Toxicology Program. Both of these studies have been reviewed by the scientific community, and compared with other similar studies.
Since I mentioned them, I will say my main perplexities:
The study exposed a number of rats and mice to an electromagnetic field in the 900 and 1900 MHz frequencies. Here the first incontrovertible point, by their own admission: the study does NOT apply to 4G, 5G and not even to Wi-Fi.
The second point to note is that the fields to which the animals were subjected were equal to 1.5↔6 W / kg, for rats and 2.5↔10 W / kg for mice, I do not want to judge the oddity for which they applied a more powerful field to animals of smaller build, I will just quote their own document verbatim:
But there is another noteworthy thing: male rats exposed to EM radiation lived longer 😊, in fact, fewer chronic kidney problems occurred, which are the main cause of death for old rats!
Watch to see that we have discovered that EM waves are curative !!
Here we enter into the merits of another area of my competence: statistics. The study in question has already been examined in depth, I will limit myself to reporting some evident probabilistic inconsistencies.
The first thing to say is that the study involved 2,448 animals, but divided into 8 groups. This means that the samples examined are far too few. In addition, these groups are not homogeneous in size, and this is certainly a second point of attention. The results are NOT comparable, nor can they be extrapolated. It cannot be said, for groups IV, "if I had used 400 samples I would have had twice as many cases", because THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS MEASURING. If you want to know what happens in a group of 400 specimens, you MUST USE 400 specimens.
The second thing to note is that, with so few elements in the sample, one cannot distinguish the result from the "fundamental errors". The fact that there were 4 cases in females and none for males in group I (= control) is already a fact that dominates the rest of the study.
The third thing to note is the absence of the dose effect: it is expected, in fact, that a higher exposure level corresponds to a greater number of cases. And it is clear that this is not the case.
Reflecting on these topics, and responding to some posts on youtube or facebook, reminded me of the LAW OF BRANDOLINI, otherwise known, in a more colorful sentence, such as the THEORY OF THE SHIT MOUNTAIN, which I will discuss in the next article.