Snarky comments were running through my mind, but I credit them for being reasonably up front about the uncertainty of radiation risks. The first item under under Radiation -> Health Risks starts with:
What is the impact of everyday radiation during pregnancy?
Today, the evidence remains mixed.
Edit: After further reading I agree with the comments below. There's no real balance here.
Good point. However, the balance of the text is more alarmist than rational.
I suspect that the target market is unlikely to read the text closely enough to distinguish, for example, between correlation and causation ( http://www.bellyarmor.com/radiation/health-risks/autism - note the graph correlating cellphone subscribers and autism case).
And while I might want to credit them with presenting technical information and research, this is more likely intended to obsfuscate and alarm with scientific/statistical terms than to clarify...
Without getting too deep into the details, RadiaShield® fabric shields against everyday radiation by neutralizing incoming electromagnetic waves - similar to how noise canceling headphones work with sound waves or how a grounding wire neutralizes an electric current."
No, noise cancelling is active - Belly Armor doesn't emit opposite phase radiation to cancel the radiation.
No, a grounding wire grounds an electric current to the ground - Belly Armor isn't grounded.
However, if at some point in the future, significant correlations are proved, I'll eat my cynicism and hat.
That's not "reasonably up front." The word "mixed" implies the evidence is relatively even on both sides. Reasonably up front would be "while the evidence is mixed, there is no compelling evidence to conclude the risks are significant."
The answer "the evidence remains mixed" can be applied to just about any question. It has no actual information. Notice they don't also provide the other side of the mixture.
Comments
Snarky comments were running through my mind, but I credit them for being reasonably up front about the uncertainty of radiation risks. The first item under under Radiation -> Health Risks starts with:
Edit: After further reading I agree with the comments below. There's no real balance here.Good point. However, the balance of the text is more alarmist than rational.
I suspect that the target market is unlikely to read the text closely enough to distinguish, for example, between correlation and causation ( http://www.bellyarmor.com/radiation/health-risks/autism - note the graph correlating cellphone subscribers and autism case).
And while I might want to credit them with presenting technical information and research, this is more likely intended to obsfuscate and alarm with scientific/statistical terms than to clarify...
Let's see; http://www.bellyarmor.com/faqs
"How do Belly Armor products work?
Without getting too deep into the details, RadiaShield® fabric shields against everyday radiation by neutralizing incoming electromagnetic waves - similar to how noise canceling headphones work with sound waves or how a grounding wire neutralizes an electric current."
No, noise cancelling is active - Belly Armor doesn't emit opposite phase radiation to cancel the radiation. No, a grounding wire grounds an electric current to the ground - Belly Armor isn't grounded.
However, if at some point in the future, significant correlations are proved, I'll eat my cynicism and hat.
I would only eat my hat, if they proved causation.
Ooof... that's what I meant!
That's not "reasonably up front." The word "mixed" implies the evidence is relatively even on both sides. Reasonably up front would be "while the evidence is mixed, there is no compelling evidence to conclude the risks are significant."
The answer "the evidence remains mixed" can be applied to just about any question. It has no actual information. Notice they don't also provide the other side of the mixture.
Yes, remarkably understated compared to scaremongering stories. Though still quite overstated compared to the evidence.