To know what, exactly? How batteries cause cancer? Hint, they don't. Why should we stay on topic when the topic is utterly pointless?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
To know what, exactly? How batteries cause cancer? Hint, they don't. Why should we stay on topic when the topic is utterly pointless?
Ha! I'm a fan of that site.
Watch out, however, your argument has the same fallacy.
Saying something is not true just because nobody has taken the time or found the budget to do appropriate scientific research on it is also ascribing truth to be a function of authority in a different way (basically assuming there is a perfect research decision making authority)
"Wasn't researched by anyone so it must be false" is just as fallacious as "He was on trial so he must've done something"
Disclaimer: I don't believe that any potential cancer risk of EM fields in a tesla is measurable and would be jokingly smaller than riding in an ICE surrounded by ICE drivers. But what I believe shouldn't matter.
Agreed, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. People have been living with EMF for many decades now in the form of house wiring, radio, and TV, and so far there's no smoking gun.
I personally believe on the second statement but also think that there's much to learn.
The first phrase is a nice soundbite but a bias for the status-quo. Claims that are "extraordinary", i.e. out of the ordinary shouldn't require any "more" or "better" proof.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just suggesting that we cut ourselves some slack as a species in believing we know how things affect our bodies and brains, and just be factual that all we can say is that pretty primitive research so far has shown nothing that would make it a risk comparable to other better-documented health/wellness threats. It was just 200 years ago that we knew nothing about bacteria and microorganisms and spontaneous generation was a common - 'ordinary'- explanation.
So if someone said they don't want to go in the Tesla because of EM fields, I'd be ethnographically curious how they deal with so many other well-documented much-higher risk factors like food preservatives, food containers, combustion byproducts, sedentary lifestyles, building materials, water systems, medication side-effects, clothing additives, etc. (including EMF from more focused and worse-placed sources) and how they inform themselves about these and make tradeoffs.
- - - Updated - - -
In reading my own post I think as a Tesla community we should be aware that people prefer the "devil they know" (or they believe they know) to new devils, even if we believe the latter to be lesser. Acknowledging that fear of the unknown is a first step to defusing it.
The first phrase is a nice soundbite but a bias for the status-quo. Claims that are "extraordinary", i.e. out of the ordinary shouldn't require any "more" or "better" proof.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just suggesting that we cut ourselves some slack as a species in believing we know how things affect our bodies and brains, and just be factual that all we can say is that pretty primitive research so far has shown nothing that would make it a risk comparable to other better-documented health/wellness threats. It was just 200 years ago that we knew nothing about bacteria and microorganisms and spontaneous generation was a common - 'ordinary'- explanation.
So if someone said they don't want to go in the Tesla because of EM fields, I'd be ethnographically curious how they deal with so many other well-documented much-higher risk factors like food preservatives, food containers, combustion byproducts, sedentary lifestyles, building materials, water systems, medication side-effects, clothing additives, etc. (including EMF from more focused and worse-placed sources) and how they inform themselves about these and make tradeoffs.
- - - Updated - - -
In reading my own post I think as a Tesla community we should be aware that people prefer the "devil they know" (or they believe they know) to new devils, even if we believe the latter to be lesser. Acknowledging that fear of the unknown is a first step to defusing it.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about the EMF from the laptop currently sitting on my, uh, lap than riding in a Tesla (or any other e-car)
CHG-ON
Still in love after all these miles
it's just plain stupid, What about everything else in our lives: TVs, cell phones, WiFi..I could go on.
Passionate issue but....
But, I am growing more hair and my vision is getting better since I started driving my S85. I also remember my destination route better than my Navigation!
This is a passionate issue but the verdict is not out yet. Cell phones are not the same as a 1500 lb battery and an induction motor.
But, I am growing more hair and my vision is getting better since I started driving my S85. I also remember my destination route better than my Navigation!
JaredBanyard
Member
That's true, cellphones intentionally radiate energy. They are much worse, but still harmless.
Assuming it hasn't changed drastically in recent times, yes we do: it helped (between almost nothing and possibly very little, but for sure unknown) our ecosystems evolve to the appearance of Homo sapiens.
I swear some mornings when I want to get out of bed the cosmological constant has a local trough.
The way I address situations like the battery skeptic is to say "you know, that's a valid question about something new, and will respect your beliefs, but here is what I concluded after looking at the research and the alternatives, and what I know as an engineer..."
Maybe tesla fan with a model S and an EMF meter could do a little YouTube video comparing riding the car vs using a cell phone or laptop or working next to a cell phone tower, or sitting in a subway and put the issue to rest proactively?
I don't have either so I'm left with just the ability to suggest.
I am 66-what do I care!
Environ Int. 2014 Sep;70:106-12. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015. Epub 2014 Jun 10.
Environ Int. 2014 Sep;70:106-12. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015. Epub 2014 Jun 10.
Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Adams JA1, Galloway TS1, Mondal D1, Esteves SC2, Mathews F3.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927498#
Abstract
Mobile phones are owned by most of the adult population worldwide. Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from these devices could potentially affect sperm development and function. Around 14% of couples in high- and middle-income countries have difficulty conceiving, and there are unexplained declines in semen quality reported in several countries. Given the ubiquity of mobile phone use, the potential role of this environmental exposure needs to be clarified. A systematic review was therefore conducted, followed by meta-analysis using random effects models, to determine whether exposure to RF-EMR emitted from mobile phones affects human sperm quality. Participants were from fertility clinic and research centres. The sperm quality outcome measures were motility, viability and concentration, which are the parameters most frequently used in clinical settings to assess fertility. We used ten studies in the meta-analysis, including 1492 samples. Exposure to mobile phones was associated with reduced sperm motility (mean difference -8.1% (95% CI -13.1, -3.2)) and viability (mean difference -9.1% (95% CI -18.4, 0.2)), but the effects on concentration were more equivocal. The results were consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies. We conclude that pooled results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality. Further study is required to determine the full clinical implications for both sub-fertile men and the general population.Yes, lead acid batteries cause all sorts of problems. They tend to explode and cause fires and contain a strong caustic acid as well as a toxic heavy metal (lead). The lithium aluminum cobalt oxide batteries used by Tesla are fairly benign. Cobalt is an essential nutrient. Aluminum is not very toxic and lithium in the environment is not considered very toxic either. There is no strong link to cancer from either lead or any of the other materials used, though lead causes a lot of other problems.
I am a strong Tesla supporter, but
Aluminum is not very toxic? It is very much implicated in Alzheimers!
Aluminum is not very toxic? It is very much implicated in Alzheimers!
And it is the most abundant element in Dirt. Many things are not good for you if you eat them! Come on, we are talking relative toxicity, which Aluminum is not very toxic.
I hope that few here were having an argument about EM radiation affecting biological functions. The question raised by the 'hater' is whether that the energy, its form and location may affect drivers. (and.. hm. BEV skeptic may be a more healthy term? and I would posit his/her 'hate' was for tesla rather than 'new gimmicks')
A few comparative measurements may not dispel side effect ; but may place them in the right category relative to other risks. (e.g Commuting in a Tesla 1 hour every day for a year; gives your crotch/head EM exposure comparable to having five 5-min phone conversations with your phone in your pants or 3 similar calls with your phone against your head in a full year; or working for 2 hours in a year with a laptop on your legs, etc.
There is no strong evidence to support this. It is certainly far safer than the lead and sulfuric acid used in the lead acid batteries found in most cars (including the Tesla model S). See myth #4. http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp and http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/controversial-claims-risk-factors. Also, around 2300 people are injured every year from lead acid batteries (http://www.uwsa.edu/ehs/occupational-safety/misc-safety/battery-safety/).
