Lol. Yes. In the history of science innovation has always been met with opened armed concensus.
BIVYg
bivyg
I lost the thread and I have no idea what you’re responding to. Don’t care enough to figure it out.
If that’s what you think the WHO is basing its findings on, then no wonder you’re so worked up.
The issue is in the aggregation of sources/quantity of exposure/proximity to sources, and not for all of us — mostly for children. That’s made very clear in the materials I’ve circulated. But you can keep arguing against a strawman if that’s the only way you can make your position make sense.
No one is claiming the policy proposal is science. But it is the result of health professionals studying science and coming to a measured response to a potential problem. It’s a respectible conclusion and not the voodoo folks here are pretending it is in order to smear a candidate. It’s the sign of a tact taken by…
Sure. Just like Hillary’s crazy anti vaxx statements in 2008. They all do it. If this is the worst you can say about Stein I’ll take her over Hillary anyday.
No one said you supported the deportations. It’s exhausting feeling compelled to respond to your strawman arguments.
I thought it was pretty obvious I’m not talking about radio. Feel free to read the WHO report.
I think we are laregly on the same page. I agree with everything you’ve said with one exception.
Nothing you’re saying conficts with the IARC, which notes that the amount of exposure experienced by children is twice as high as that in results. The WHO has based its reccomendations on that research, and several countries have taken precautionary steps to limit exposure to the youngest among us. You should ask…
Yep.
I don’t know what to tell you. Triclosan is a substance that does not contribute to the antibactrial effficacy of products (so it’s unecessary), and which has never been investigated for its effect on humans. No one is saying that it causes anything, but the fact that the FDA does not regulate the vast majority of…
Mountains of science. . . ok.
Actually, it says there is no indication as of yet that it is harmful. But there is enough risk that it’s still classified as a potential carcinogean. And Stein isn’t saying it’s harmful either. She’s saying, like WHO and many european nations, that as long as risk is still being investigated, that it makes sense to…
I’m not sure why you think that I think non-inoizing radiation causes any particular ailment. It’s pretty clear you’re misunderstanding my argument. No one is proposing wifi as a root cause for random ailments. She’s not responding to the fact that wifi has been classified by the WHO as a potential carcenogen, and…
1) Your point was that lightbulbs are harmless. I made a joke that my friend is, in fact, allergic to lighbulbs. (We’d have music practice in the dark sometimes when she reacted badly). It’s not really relevant to the conversation.
Of course not, but the fact that several nations which generally lead (along with us) in matters of both technology and public saftey have chosen this path suggests that Stein is not the crazy anti science loon that folks are pretending she is.