Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Those BPA-Free products you've been using? Turns out they contain more Synthetic Estrogen than BPA, and the Plastics Industry has developed the testing methods the EPA uses that intentionally don't detect it because: Free Market   (motherjones.com) divider line 169
    More: Scary, BPA, EPA, free markets, idea, Environmental Health Perspectives, Michael Green, estrogens, big tobacco  
•       •       •

5942 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 03:54:00 PM  
Has anyone pointed out that "the dose makes the poison" yet?
 
2014-03-07 03:54:39 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


100 posts in the thread

CTRL+F "nexxus" = 61 Results

11/10

Well done chap, well done.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So that's where moobs come from.


Tits up, America!
 
2014-03-07 03:56:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: nexxus: My biggest problem is that the government isn't reliable, is corrupt and easily corruptible, and that it also has soverign immunity. Bad combination.

That it is. (Though I'm OK with some kinds of sovereign immunity.)


I'm actually okay with some kinds of soverign immunity, also, but not when the lives and health of citizens are at stake.  Suing the government for knowingly spraying you with toxic chemicals should be allowed, for instance.

But I think government is less susceptible to those problems than private industry is, with the added bonus that I at least retain some manner of choice in my elected officials.

We disagree here, then, on a few points.  If 3rd parties that were adequately bonded/insured and could be sued out of existence for a failures, I'd feel more comfortable relying on them than I do on a government that largely can't be held responsible.  And you hardly have choices wrt elected officials.  How many citizens per congressman now?  I think I could probably effectively argue that we - as citizens - are no longer represented.

// and while I would absolutely love more competition in my markets, it's not a panacea
// some markets - utilities and healthcare, to name two - SHOULD be public monopolies

I might be convinced by some of this, particularly if you argued from an efficiency-in-rights-of-way angle, but I generally lean toward 'free markets', obviously.
 
2014-03-07 03:57:26 PM  

Kittypie070: So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.


Sweetie, my point was that you wouldn't have to work as long or as hard - that our system would be different, entirely - if you weren't being robbed every hour of every day.
 
2014-03-07 03:59:06 PM  

Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.


Yuck.  Sugar is poison.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:54 PM  

Mr. Right: The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.


What oil shortages?
 
2014-03-07 04:10:15 PM  

nexxus: And you hardly have choices wrt elected officials. How many citizens per congressman now? I think I could probably effectively argue that we - as citizens - are no longer represented.


You retain the choice, if only because you have the opportunity to run (assuming you're over 25/30/35, depending on office).

And again, I have my problems with the shaping of districts, campaign finance rules, choice in candidates (for example, why are Democrats in red Texan districts the craziest motherfarkers this side of Texas' Senate delegation?), and party machinery, but not deep enough that I favor scrapping the whole thing.

// but I do like that representation is an argument we've been having pretty much as long as we've had representatives
// makes me think we're never satisfied with what we've got
 
2014-03-07 04:17:58 PM  

nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.


So is pure water if you drink too much. So is pure oxygen at too high a pressure.

Look, you got a decent set of wits on you and I always enjoy wit, but you also have a few blind spots.

I'm not playing kitty-smack-the-paperwad with you out of malice, I'm just trying to point out where you need to reflect a bit more.

K?
 
2014-03-07 04:22:08 PM  

Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.

So is pure water if you drink too much. So is pure oxygen at too high a pressure.

Look, you got a decent set of wits on you and I always enjoy wit, but you also have a few blind spots.

I'm not playing kitty-smack-the-paperwad with you out of malice, I'm just trying to point out where you need to reflect a bit more.

K?


Indeed, I study drugs for a living (neuropharmacologist, not crack addict... and yes I realize they're not mutually exclusive).  Pretty much anything becomes dangerous or produces adverse effects at some point/concentration/dose/probability.  Part of life is managing risk.  When everything can kill you, you have to prioritize what to worry about.  I do not worry about BPAs
 
2014-03-07 04:22:09 PM  

nexxus: DNRTFA


The article's main story was how a private company ($80,000 startup) dedicated to provide the exact 3rd party testing you advocate was discredited and silenced by the company ($7 billion) making the products being tested.

Specifically, despite internal testing that showed otherwise, the plastics company lied to its customers about the hormonal impact, and then sued to have the testing party injoined from making claims about the hormonal impact of the plastic.
 
2014-03-07 04:22:38 PM  

nexxus: meat0918: Which EMFs do you think can harm you?

Most of them.  It's pretty much proven that EMFs create stress (at the cellular level) in the body, and stress is bad .. enough of it leads to disease.


You should probably learn what other sources of EMF are. Because...no.

Just no. All encompassing, no.
 
2014-03-07 04:24:10 PM  

nexxus: I think systems would have developed and evolved to support that kind of society (a free one). Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that.


Systems were developed. They're called governments.
 
2014-03-07 04:27:04 PM  

nexxus: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


there would be no system. We'd be farked. These government agencies only exist because people demanded them because nobody knew what was in anything
 
Ant
2014-03-07 04:28:33 PM  

Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.
[snip]

(And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.

So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.


Didn't you see? People would only need 50% of a job in his libertarian utopia, because there would be no taxes!
 
2014-03-07 04:31:20 PM  
I still want that Mexicoke, bub.

:D
 
2014-03-07 04:33:57 PM  
Has there ever, in the history of capitalism, been a self-regulating industry that didn't pull this kind of shiat?
 
2014-03-07 04:39:07 PM  

nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-07 04:41:02 PM  

Ant: Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.
[snip]

(And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.

So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.

Didn't you see? People would only need 50% of a job in his libertarian utopia, because there would be no taxes!


People are only working 50% of the times in our current Utopia.  See, if you keep your hours under half, you still get federal assistance for being low income.  The way I see it, we win no matter which way the political compass swings.
 
2014-03-07 04:44:51 PM  

trialpha: nexxus: I think systems would have developed and evolved to support that kind of society (a free one). Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that.

Systems were developed. They're called governments.


"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
    -James Madison, Federalist #51
 
2014-03-07 04:50:27 PM  
The only real solution is to send the military to kill the plastic container manufacturers, destroy their plants, kill their employees and their families.

It's the only way to be sure.

Meanwhile, you're just serfs and slaves and you'll do what you're damned well told to do.
 
2014-03-07 04:51:43 PM  

kroonermanblack: nexxus: meat0918: Which EMFs do you think can harm you?

Most of them.  It's pretty much proven that EMFs create stress (at the cellular level) in the body, and stress is bad .. enough of it leads to disease.

You should probably learn what other sources of EMF are. Because...no.

Just no. All encompassing, no.


I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.
 
2014-03-07 04:52:44 PM  

nexxus: nocturnal001: So then I would hours researching every single product before I buy and take the advise from a 3rd party with no legal responsibility to me? Sounds super duper efficient.

Your scenario does not work unless we eliminate the corporate shield and hold managers and stock holders personal responsible for damages.

I do spend hours researching nearly every product I use.  I would take advice from a third party if I trusted them and/or had some recourse if they willfully misrepresented something and I was harmed.

Who said anything about leaving corporate shields and such intact?  I think anyone who knowingly harms someone else should be held responsible.  Like using a chemical you know is toxic but not telling anyone.  Or actively preventing people from finding out that what you're doing is harmful.  That sort of thing.


You spend hours researching a bottle of water?

Not saying you are cool with the corporate veil thing but that is something suspiciously absent from most free market soap boxes.
 
2014-03-07 04:54:08 PM  
I wonder when farkers are going to learn what a real free market is.
 
2014-03-07 04:57:21 PM  
Mwelp, hot dog time.
 
2014-03-07 05:10:50 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Except the average Farker has no idea about how government agencies operate and who they actually serve or the history. They were told by their grade school teachers that the FDA keeps them safe and thus that's all they know. Like american school children do, anyone with a greater understanding or intelligence will be mocked and ridiculed for not going along with the social illusions.
 
2014-03-07 05:32:12 PM  

Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.

So is pure water if you drink too much. So is pure oxygen at too high a pressure.

Look, you got a decent set of wits on you and I always enjoy wit, but you also have a few blind spots.

I'm not playing kitty-smack-the-paperwad with you out of malice, I'm just trying to point out where you need to reflect a bit more.

K?


Sugar is actually toxic - and not in a 'water-is-toxic-if-you-drink-12-gallons' kinda way, but in a 'this-cannot-possibly-help-you-in-any-way-unless-you're-a-diabetic-and -need-sugar-to-normalize-insulin-levels-right-this-second,-or-somethin g' kind of way.  There are books written about it.  And there's plenty in the literature.  There's virtually no good that can come from consuming the 'empty' (of micronutrients) calories of sugar, and it's more addictive than cocaine.. so.. why?  Anything that doesn't help you and can cause harm (let me count the ways...) is 'bad', pretty much by definition.  I mean is it just "Because I like it" ?  If so ....

For some background (at least):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/sugar-toxic-health-effects- su crose-fructose_n_3599864.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewa nt ed=all&_r=0

No offense intended.  Just trying to help you reflect, some, too.
 
2014-03-07 05:32:32 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


2/10.

You'll get bites from people who haven't read their Upton Sinclair, though.
 
2014-03-07 05:35:11 PM  

Abuse Liability: Indeed, I study drugs for a living (neuropharmacologist, not crack addict... and yes I realize they're not mutually exclusive). Pretty much anything becomes dangerous or produces adverse effects at some point/concentration/dose/probability. Part of life is managing risk. When everything can kill you, you have to prioritize what to worry about. I do not worry about BPAs


Agreed.  I hardly worry about BPA, myself.

Sugar is worth worrying about, though -- not for me (I avoid it), but for the majority.

Approaching 70% of Americans are chronically ill in one way or another.  Sugar absolutely contributes.
 
2014-03-07 05:37:47 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: The article's main story was how a private company ($80,000 startup) dedicated to provide the exact 3rd party testing you advocate was discredited and silenced by the company ($7 billion) making the products being tested.

Specifically, despite internal testing that showed otherwise, the plastics company lied to its customers about the hormonal impact, and then sued to have the testing party injoined from making claims about the hormonal impact of the plastic.


Thanks.  Not surprising... at all.

There was a really good article in the New Yorker recently about Atrazine and a researcher who determined it was harmful:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?cur re ntPage=all
 
2014-03-07 05:39:45 PM  

kroonermanblack: You should probably learn what other sources of EMF are. Because...no.

Just no. All encompassing, no.


I'm talking about artificially generated EMFs (like from RF transmitters, computers, etc.), and I'd assumed everyone else was, too.  If you want to split hairs, fine.
 
2014-03-07 05:41:01 PM  

charlesmartel11235: there would be no system. We'd be farked. These government agencies only exist because people demanded them because nobody knew what was in anything


You should make an effort to know the history of most of the government agencies.  People didn't demand shiat, in most cases.
 
2014-03-07 05:45:24 PM  

meat0918: I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.


It sounds like you know people who are sensitive to EMF, then?  Have you done any blind tests?  Can they detect EMF from phones, WiFi, etc. ?  I have, and they can.

But it's not just me.. there are plenty of doctors who recognize EMFs as a cause of health issues.  Keep an open mind and do some research.

/I actually owned a wireless company about a decade ago and thought just like you back then ('nutbags!'), but now.. not so much.
 
2014-03-07 05:46:13 PM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency.

How would you know the certification was bad?  Heck, how would you know what sort of certification each item you eat should have?   It could take years before the problems start to show, and years more to trace back the source of the illness.  And then who has the money to fight this through the courts?


This is how it works now.

And how do people sue corporations now? Lawyers work on contingency and use class actions. Sure, they fark the defendants but the corp gets punished and that's all you care about.


There's nothing stopping people from doing what you describe now.

It's called crowding out. Why would anyone go looking for a certification label when they KNOW that the USDA, EPA, FDA, etc. has already determined that this product is "most definitely" safe?
 
2014-03-07 05:47:52 PM  

FnkyTwn: nexxus: a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market

jigger: That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA.

Unless you live in Texas and you can't even go to court and instead get mandatory arbitration, but don't worry, because the agency hired to manage the arbitration is paid by the company you're trying to sue. Also, your damages are capped at $250k and then your lawyers fees come out of that.

Your system is flawless, that's why it works so well in all those Libertarian countries around the world.


Yeah, that system with mandatory things and caps on damages sounds pretty libertarian. Sorry for not seeing how stupid I was.
 
2014-03-07 05:48:40 PM  

nocturnal001: You spend hours researching a bottle of water?

Not saying you are cool with the corporate veil thing but that is something suspiciously absent from most free market soap boxes.


I've spent a lot of time researching water, yes.  Not a bottle so much, but water in general.  Though I do test bottled waters.  The easiest way is to distill them and see what's left over.  You'd be surprised if you've never done that.  And try it with your muncipal water - that's great fun.  Talk about sludge (in many places) ...

I've actually been considering investing in a GC-MS to take it to the next level.
 
2014-03-07 05:49:12 PM  

leadmetal: I wonder when farkers are going to learn what a real free market is.


When the term stops being troll bait.
 
2014-03-07 05:49:48 PM  

Kittypie070: Mwelp, hot dog time.


Most hot dogs have sugar in them!  Be careful.
 
2014-03-07 05:51:51 PM  

leadmetal: Except the average Farker has no idea about how government agencies operate and who they actually serve or the history. They were told by their grade school teachers that the FDA keeps them safe and thus that's all they know. Like american school children do, anyone with a greater understanding or intelligence will be mocked and ridiculed for not going along with the social illusions.


Exactly.  I have first hand experience working with regulators, regulatory agencies, and government, generally.  I know how shiat goes, and it ain't pretty.  It's nothing like what everyone here seems to think.
 
2014-03-07 05:54:38 PM  

nexxus: meat0918: I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.

It sounds like you know people who are sensitive to EMF, then?  Have you done any blind tests?  Can they detect EMF from phones, WiFi, etc. ?  I have, and they can.

But it's not just me.. there are plenty of doctors who recognize EMFs as a cause of health issues.  Keep an open mind and do some research.

/I actually owned a wireless company about a decade ago and thought just like you back then ('nutbags!'), but now.. not so much.


Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.
 
2014-03-07 05:56:41 PM  

kroonermanblack: Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.


I wasn't asking you to approve.  I was trying to help you.  Maybe you'll learn eventually.
 
2014-03-07 05:57:46 PM  

nexxus: meat0918: I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.

It sounds like you know people who are sensitive to EMF, then?  Have you done any blind tests?  Can they detect EMF from phones, WiFi, etc. ?  I have, and they can.

But it's not just me.. there are plenty of doctors who recognize EMFs as a cause of health issues.  Keep an open mind and do some research.

/I actually owned a wireless company about a decade ago and thought just like you back then ('nutbags!'), but now.. not so much.


No, they cannot, at least not better than random chance.

Stop peddling this bullshiat.
 
2014-03-07 05:58:03 PM  

Mr. Right: The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.


yeah and poisoned
 
2014-03-07 06:00:24 PM  

meat0918: No, they cannot, at least not better than random chance.

Stop peddling this bullshiat.


I'm not peddling anything.  Why are you reacting so strongly/negatively?  Does that call into question your belief system, or something?
 
2014-03-07 06:09:06 PM  

jaybeezey: What oil shortages?


The ones they've been telling us for 40 years are right around the corner.
 
2014-03-07 06:12:45 PM  
Pick your topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EMF

In case you can't, here are a few (from the first page of the results at the link above):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24584565
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24488772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482293

If you need me to interpret them (or read them to you), let me know.

Question for you:  Have you ever actually done any research on this topic?  Or are you just spouting off?
 
2014-03-07 06:15:55 PM  

nexxus: meat0918: No, they cannot, at least not better than random chance.

Stop peddling this bullshiat.

I'm not peddling anything.  Why are you reacting so strongly/negatively?  Does that call into question your belief system, or something?


Only in that I am tired of people spouting unproven and scientifically unsubstantiated garbage.  While I hold open the possibility some people are EMF sensitive, so far, they have found no substantiation of those claims.
 
2014-03-07 06:17:17 PM  

nexxus: Pick your topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EMF

In case you can't, here are a few (from the first page of the results at the link above):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24584565
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24488772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482293

If you need me to interpret them (or read them to you), let me know.

Question for you:  Have you ever actually done any research on this topic?  Or are you just spouting off?


We're talking about two different things here.
 
2014-03-07 06:20:12 PM  
endocrine disruptors

/that which does not kill you can steal your manhood, even at tiny, tiny doses


//sleep tight government regulation is bad and the free market will surely resolve this
 
2014-03-07 06:28:36 PM  

meat0918: nexxus: Pick your topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EMF

In case you can't, here are a few (from the first page of the results at the link above):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24584565
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24488772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482293

If you need me to interpret them (or read them to you), let me know.

Question for you:  Have you ever actually done any research on this topic?  Or are you just spouting off?

We're talking about two different things here.


And just for clarification, I am talking about so called EMF sensitives that think wifi is killing them.

I was not speaking of the broader possibilities of interactions between various power levels, frequencies, intensities, etc.

I've watched someone handing out "orgone" pucks claiming it would do everything from protecting them from (the nonexistent in our water here) fluoride to the naphthalene fumes from the creosote plant that sits in the middle of our neighborhood as well as EMF.

As an aside, this woman was also poisoning herself with borax to counter act the fluoride that again, doesn't get added to our water, until someone called a local clinic that helps deal with people that cannot afford normal healthcare.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report