AI summary & topic connections
Argues that safety assessments should rely on qualified researchers and replicated evidence rather than public opinion, and criticizes inconsistent privacy instructions.
- Research & federal duties:
bsequently published, peer reviewed and replicated is the only ( repeat, only) valid input on this topic. A re
- Surveillance & privacy concerns:
ductive and naive. Also, note that the privacy disclaimer states ‘do not submit personally identifiable information’,
My opinion on this topic is as follows; the opinion of the general public has no bearing on the actual safety of electromagnetic radiation. Evidence developed by qualified physicists, biomedical researchers, epidemiologists, and other scientists, and subsequently published, peer reviewed and replicated is the only ( repeat, only) valid input on this topic. A request for public comment on this topic is counterproductive and naive.
Also, note that the privacy disclaimer states ‘do not submit personally identifiable information’, immediately after requiring PII to respond. This is obviously self contradictory.