>>12323841I am continuing from here:
>>12324051Your claim that this is "settled science" is simply false. There are very few examples of settled science. Quantum mechanics, relativity, classical field theory, and evolution are settled sciences. Almost anything to do with health, physiology, or genetic is not at all settled. In fact, most tissues and proteins in the human body could not even be analyzed with a high degree of reliability until the development of certain imaging technologies in the 90s and machine learning in the 2000s. We've literally only been examining human tissue composition and protein synthesis in serious manner for <20 years. But don't trust me, lets look at some source in my next post.
>>12323773You are missing my point and this is a literal logical fallacy. There are several problems with your claim:
(1) You are overlooking issues like the Flint water crisis. Rich people live in Flint, MI and they rely on the same public water sources as everyone else, and yet they haven't done anything to stop it.
(2) By your reasoning oil companies and chemical have no reason to lie about the effects of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, since they have to live in the same environment than us
(3) You are overlooking the concept of externalities and issues like the free rider problem. Yes rich people might be harmed just as much as the poor, but if they disportionately benefit from maintaining unsafe practices, these practices may nevertheless continue. In fact there are concrete example of these. Construction executive knew for decades that asbestos was bad, and yet they still built their own homes with asbestos, because the millions of dollars they raked in compensated for a slightly higher risk of cancer
(4) You are attacking a straw man. You are acting like I am suggesting that 5G is going to make us crazy or cause severe mutations. It could very well be minor issue, in which case, like I said in (3) the "rich" may not be too concerned.
