Apparently Tinfoil Is Also Prohibitively Expensive In Santa Fe

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. tgb says:

    I avoid businesses that offer wi-fi because I heard it's bad for my cell phone-induced brain cancer.

  2. N says:

    Where's the burden of proof? WiFi is definitely useful (but my useage is purely for entertainment purposes — likely it's more utilitarian for police officers, or some other lines of work). Is the burden of proof on those who need to show that it definitely is dangerous, or is it a technology which shouldn't be widespread until it is shown that it definitely isn't dangerous?

    Nanotechnology?

    Saccharin?

    Coal-fired plants?

  3. Ken says:

    Is it possible to prove the negative? I think it's more logical to put the burden on someone asserting that it's dangerous.

  4. Chris says:

    WiFi does nothing that many, many other radio broadcasting technologies don't. There's no good scientific reason to assume that it's unsafe, and the people who are asserting that it's unsafe have no evidence. When there's no theoretical basis to assume negative effects and the people who claim negative effects fail to demonstrate them in controlled situations, that's about as definitive as you get, no?