Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men "were men") have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.
aleph
And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?
Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?
P.S. who is "you people"?
All true, but that doesn't disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.
Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn't categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.
To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of null results doesn't mean there is categorically no link -- it could equally mean that more research is needed.
That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.
Actually, it's nothing more than lazy slander pepetuated by duopoly apologists.
There's zero proof Stein is "Putin backed". She once sat at the same table at an international conference and barely spoke to the man. That's it.
Meanwhile, AOC has been publicly performing as a genuine progressive for her voters and constituents all while voting and acting like a corporate Democrat behind the scenes.
According to this YouGov poll of least <> most trusted news sources , CNN lands bang in the middle of the pack. So not as bad as FOX, but not as high as PBS or ABC.
As for my own 2¢, all the US cable news channels are varying degrees of bad. Best to avoid, generally speaking.