Follow, retweet @dailypinster




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:42 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jan 28, 2013
Posts: 1336
Col. Max Pyatnitski wrote:
You really end up waiting for the two of them to pull the human suits off:

(and yes, yes, Clinton is far better than Trump; no question. But that's a damning with faint praise compliment in the category of saying "Trump did better in the debate than I expected". If I had a vote in this US election, it'd certainly be for Clinton at this stage, but I'd be scratching my head why I and so many other voters disliked our chosen candidate so much.)


Why not vote for Jill Stein?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:45 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jun 26, 2012
Posts: 2972
Location: The Second Æther! Hull Breach Imminent, Eschaton Immanent...
Scratcher wrote:
Why not vote for Jill Stein?

Why not indeed.
My point was more the alienating effect of the two main party candidates rather than a comment on any third party candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:33 am 
Offline
IMF'd

Joined: Sep 13, 2007
Posts: 31334
Location: Tullamore
Scratcher wrote:
Why not vote for Jill Stein?

Because she thinks that wifi is bad for your brain. And that water can cure you. And that the anti-vax movement can't be all wrong. It's not so much that she believes all this stuff, just that she's bad at separating science from the stupidity of crowds.

_________________
"It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good."

So long and thanks for all the fish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:57 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16995
Location: To the right of the decimal place
yoganmahew wrote:
Scratcher wrote:
Why not vote for Jill Stein?

Because she thinks that wifi is bad for your brain. And that water can cure you. And that the anti-vax movement can't be all wrong. It's not so much that she believes all this stuff, just that she's bad at separating science from the stupidity of crowds.


I was about to post that. Also, she's for DC statehood which I don't think is a great idea. Although it's surely not a make-or-break issue for me.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:07 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 9772
The only thing Jill Stein has going for her is that her brand of crazy might be a bit less dangerous than the other two. (Though maybe not).

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:20 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Jill Stein's concerns about elecomagnetic radiation seems to be focused on badies and children? Is that a controversial view? I thought it was normal enough to have a precautionary principle when adverse health impacts were suspected and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove something was safe? We don't give mobile phones to young children for that very reason.

Being cured by water? Kind of depends on the affliction. Jill Stein is a medical doctor, so maybe if she said water was good for you that it would be better not to dismiss it entirely.

And her concerns about vaccinations seems to be confined to the regulatory process, not explicitly to vaccines or what they do. She is a doctor after all.

But yeah, she's nuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:26 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16995
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Coles2 wrote:
Jill Stein's concerns about elecomagnetic radiation seems to be focused on badies and children? Is that a controversial view? I thought it was normal enough to have a precautionary principle when adverse health impacts were suspected and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove something was safe? We don't give mobile phones to young children for that very reason.


Yes, that is a controversial view. There is no evidence to show Wi-Fi is dangerous to babies and small children, and plenty of studies that show no issues at all. She does not seem to be against microwave ovens, which will often produce more radiation in the home than a Wi-Fi device.

Mobile phones are completely unrelated since they operate on different frequencies and at power levels that are an order of magnitude higher than Wi-Fi devices; and even then, the advice not to give mobiles to small children for radiation purposes is in itself controversial, and based on an abundance of caution.

Her beliefs have an alarming whiff of "truthiness" about them.

But is she less crazy than the other two? Quite possibly.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:42 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Mantissa wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
Jill Stein's concerns about elecomagnetic radiation seems to be focused on badies and children? Is that a controversial view? I thought it was normal enough to have a precautionary principle when adverse health impacts were suspected and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove something was safe? We don't give mobile phones to young children for that very reason.


Yes, that is a controversial view. There is no evidence to show Wi-Fi is dangerous to babies and small children, and plenty of studies that show no issues at all.
No, it's not a controversial view to believe that babies are more at risk of adverse impacts from elecromagnetic radiation. It's actually common sense. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X14000583


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:47 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16995
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Coles2 wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
Jill Stein's concerns about elecomagnetic radiation seems to be focused on badies and children? Is that a controversial view? I thought it was normal enough to have a precautionary principle when adverse health impacts were suspected and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove something was safe? We don't give mobile phones to young children for that very reason.


Yes, that is a controversial view. There is no evidence to show Wi-Fi is dangerous to babies and small children, and plenty of studies that show no issues at all.
No, it's not a controversial view to believe that babies are more at risk of adverse impacts from elecromagnetic radiation. It's actually common sense. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X14000583


Load of things give off "electromagnetic radiation", at various levels. Like a lightbulb. Saying "babies are more at risk" is one of those "yes, no, what of it?" statements that means pretty much nothing unless you know what frequency and what power you're talking about. Some are harmless, some are life-threatenting.

You know this of course, not sure why you're being obtuse. There's a faction of crazies who think they can "sense" Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellphone signals and are being slowly roasted by them, but there's no evidence to support any of that.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:25 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jan 28, 2013
Posts: 1336
ps200306 wrote:
The only thing Jill Stein has going for her is that her brand of crazy might be a bit less dangerous than the other two. (Though maybe not).


Isn't that what this whole debate is about, which of these people are the craziest and the most dangerous. I think trump is the biggest idiot, Clinton has already proven how dangerous she is, Stein at least is better than those two.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:29 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jan 28, 2013
Posts: 1336
Mantissa wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
Jill Stein's concerns about elecomagnetic radiation seems to be focused on badies and children? Is that a controversial view? I thought it was normal enough to have a precautionary principle when adverse health impacts were suspected and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove something was safe? We don't give mobile phones to young children for that very reason.


Yes, that is a controversial view. There is no evidence to show Wi-Fi is dangerous to babies and small children, and plenty of studies that show no issues at all.
No, it's not a controversial view to believe that babies are more at risk of adverse impacts from elecromagnetic radiation. It's actually common sense. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X14000583


Load of things give off "electromagnetic radiation", at various levels. Like a lightbulb. Saying "babies are more at risk" is one of those "yes, no, what of it?" statements that means pretty much nothing unless you know what frequency and what power you're talking about. Some are harmless, some are life-threatenting.

You know this of course, not sure why you're being obtuse. There's a faction of crazies who think they can "sense" Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellphone signals and are being slowly roasted by them, but there's no evidence to support any of that.


I feel a new thread coming on :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:10 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Sep 15, 2015
Posts: 1434
Mantissa wrote:
You know this of course, not sure why you're being obtuse. There's a faction of crazies who think they can "sense" Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellphone signals and are being slowly roasted by them, but there's no evidence to support any of that.


Interestingly, some of these people show real measurable physical effects when they're close to a wifi access point/phone/whatever. The catch is, it doesn't matter whether the offending device is real or not; a fake wifi access point causes the same problems as a working one. It's a particularly impressive example of a psychosomatic illness.

It's odd, really, that people only started worrying about this with microwave stuff. I'd have thought that if a mobile phone tower was scary, a shortwave transmission tower should be terrifying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:53 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Jan 4, 2012
Posts: 565
Given that I don't know exactly what type of radiation is how dangerous and to who but I have seen the effects of regime change and "humanitarian intervention" or "no-fly zones" I think I have to make up my mind whether being overly cautious regarding the effects of radiation on babies is as serious a criticism of a presidential candidate as having a track record of being overly reckless regarding sponsoring armed groups to overthrow governments in multiple countries around the world.

Medical and scientific information might be conflicting regarding the harmfulness of various frequencies of radiation.
The dogs in the street can tell you that after admitted failures of intervention in Iraq and Libya and the revelation that the "casus beli" in these cases was fabricated that to further intervene in Syria is very likely to have disastrous results and that the propaganda we are hearing now about Assad is highly likely to be just like the Hussein WMDs and the Gaddafi genocide allegations that were blatantly falsified.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:35 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 7056
Split this baby out. OT to the election.

Reading American Caesars at the moment. Bloody hell, Jack Kennedy makes Bill Clinton look like a total saint. (Jackie got a payoff from Joe not to divorce him. Wonder what Hillary got?)

_________________
“Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut—and don’t ask an academic if what he does is relevant.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:01 pm 
Offline
Neo Landlord

Joined: Jul 8, 2010
Posts: 204
Coles2 wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
Jill Stein's concerns about elecomagnetic radiation seems to be focused on badies and children? Is that a controversial view? I thought it was normal enough to have a precautionary principle when adverse health impacts were suspected and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove something was safe? We don't give mobile phones to young children for that very reason.


Yes, that is a controversial view. There is no evidence to show Wi-Fi is dangerous to babies and small children, and plenty of studies that show no issues at all.
No, it's not a controversial view to believe that babies are more at risk of adverse impacts from elecromagnetic radiation. It's actually common sense. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X14000583



That paper is hilariously, stupidly bad. My favourite bit:
Quote:
4.5. Digital dementia
Digital dementia also referred to as FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) is a real concern. A science publication's review article describes the problem in great depth [45]. An empirical study of the problem was published in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Skippy 3 and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com