Andy Bromberg

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 25 天前观点输出

@justindross let's go!!

101156

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/07/01观点输出

Hey Isaac, if you're interested, that we have information about EMFs in these two articles and others on our site: https://t.co/eH51QqsIKL (very in-depth review of the scientific literature relating to RF-EMF carcinogenicity) https://t.co/6h4BfwaK3h (overview of EMFs) There are a LOT of non-scientific perspectives and fearmongering on EMFs out there. But at Lightwork we aspire to counter that with data & science :)

10169

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/07/01观点输出

RT @packyM: It turns out, my house has been making me dumb(er). Sorry about that. Fixing it now. After I saw Lenny's tweet a month or so a…

020073

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/06/11观点输出

Thrilled about this!

004324

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/06/11观点输出

RT @lightworkhome: Lightwork was selected to perform home health assessments for clients of Immortals Concierge, Immortals’ premium concier…

0200

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/04/13赛道影响

RT @sajithpai: For those founders with strong ops DNA exploring India1 opportunities, I predict a @lightworkhome for India could be an inte…

0800

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/04/07赛道影响

RT @lightworkhome: We built a free, data-driven tool to objectively help you choose the right air purifier for your home. There is so much…

0201

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/03/17观点输出

RT @seesawsite: Amity Ventures by @andy_bromberg @aravreby @CJ_Reim https://t.co/RN5Azp0PkP

0300

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/03/03政策影响

Thanks, Sarah. We're in agreement that biological interaction is not at all the same across the spectrum. Attached is a screenshot of our ultimate summary in the original article — we specifically say you need to look at the frequency, the intensity, the duration and pattern of exposure, and the individual in question before drawing any hard conclusions. I appreciate the feedback, but I'm frankly not sure how I would explain some of these topics to people without using examples (which I think we are clear are only examples and don't represent the entire spectrum — that's sorta the point of the article). Regarding major health authorities — certainly true in some cases, although also worth noting that regulatory limits vary by country. We go into the regulatory dynamics in the US in yet another article here, which suggests some questions about the approach (including the fact that the FCC, the US' primary RF-EMF regulator, has been under a standing DC Appeals court remand for the last 5 years to better explain their rationale for the current limits and yet has not done so): https://t.co/Ldfif9o8dk

00462

AI：偏政策推进，强调合规落地与规则明晰，对监管主线更敏感。

Andy Bromberg@andy_bromberg · 2026/03/03政策影响

Hi Sarah — author of the article here. Happy to discuss the article and the science. Since you're interested in the body of scientific papers, you may enjyo another piece we published with a pretty exhaustive review of the literature on potential carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, which looks at many papers, some of which claim common exposures are harmful and some which claim they aren't. The literature is certainly divided! https://t.co/cbUg32BDUi To your points: >- You’re making a false bio equivalence. Blue light affects specific retinal photoreceptors evolved to regulate circadian rhythm. Wifi + AC EMF don't interact with those receptors. Where in the article do you see us claiming wifi & AC EMF interact with those receptors? We do not. Blue light is simply used as an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing, non-thermal electromagnetic fields _can_ have disruptive biological effects (something commonly disputed in public, but which we think is effectively incontrovertible). We don't believe that RF-EMF works through the same mechanisms as blue light, in general. >- Re: “EMFs can disrupt systems in your body.” Which systems? Through what mechanism? At what dose? The article you were reading was an overview of EMFs broadly and explicitly did not set out to answer those questions. The one I just linked above has much more information regarding your questions on RF-EMF bioeffects specifically. We plan to write another similar one on ELF Magnetic fields and likely one on AC E fields. >- Re: “If the amplitude is high enough, tissue gets heated.” For microwave oven levels at 1000W. Wifi router emits 0.1/1W dispersed. Nothing to compare here. Correct, and our article agrees with you here. We do not claim that wifi routers cause thermal effects. In the section you cited, we are simply explaining what thermal effects are, not suggesting wifi routers cause them. (It's the "Non-ionizing but thermal" section of the article, which we don't claim applies to things like wifi routers) >- Non-ionizing radiation (wifi, radio, AC) doesn't have enough photon energy to break chemical bonds. Only ionizing radiation does Also correct, and also completely in line with our article. See section "Ionizing EMFs" which describes what you're saying in detail. I'm not sure what you're suggesting we got wrong here. >You present correct physics concepts, then jump to unsupported biological implications Can you please point out the "unsupported biological implications" in the article? If there are any, we would want to address them and update the article. >+ you're not explaining why the dozen of papers who claimed that there're no significant risks at realistic exposure are wrong. Regarding the papers — that was not the mandate of the overview article. But if you have any thoughts or disagreements with our analysis in the literature review article (on a clearly divided scientific body of evidence), we would deeply appreciate it. We take the science seriously and are always open to corrections and updates.

10299

AI：偏政策推进，强调合规落地与规则明晰，对监管主线更敏感。