The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
you're and you really think this should be like less than 10 ideally some of the studies that are coming out are saying that when we're less than 10 that we think that there's a good chance that we're not getting a lot of long-term um harm from that
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we're in the quote unquote extreme range is very strict by the way and it's based on I believe like the building biology institutes um guidelines but it's also based on where there's research for this you know level of power density and I just pulled up a PDF and they have research showing harmful effects as as low like far below this basically you have to be in the green or moderate range here which is like we're talking 500 microwatts per met squared or less