Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Jill Stein Off the Charts Pseudo-Science: Vaccines, "Wi-Fi Radiation"" video.

  1. Hillary is not campaigning based on her belief. Jill is.
    15
  2. In the scope of the subject matter, cell phones and Wi-Fi are the same thing, you know? They're radio wavelengths of varying amplitude and frequency.
    4
  3. ***** "...there is a vast difference between the radiation emitted by cellular phones and wifi." No, there isn't. And on the article on "Cell Phones and Cancer Risk": "Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. ... In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (6–8)."
    4
  4. Judy, there's not been mercury in vaccines for a long time, and even when there was, you'd get more mercury from a can of tuna fish.
    3
  5. ***** I just had to laugh at the Scientific American article you linked. Did you check out the study? I looked at the numbers and questioned the sensationalism of the article. Then I read the results of the study. It included this: "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all 2 groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control 3 females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to 4 CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg 5 females compared to controls." It also states, "In pregnant rats exposed to 900 MHz GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, no exposure-related effects were observed on the percent of dams littering, litter size, or sex distribution of pups." The only argument here is that the p-values were hovering at just 0.05 -- just barely enough to say it's statistically significant.
    3
  6. Sarban Christian is de facto a creationist, you know?
    2
  7. Martina P HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're a dumb ass, and thankfully if your family keeps this up for generations your stupidity will die out.
    2
  8. Tough Life Let me know when your supporting evidence doesn't require jumps to conclusions, and I'll take you seriously enough to actually debate you.
    2
  9. Tough Life If I created something that I was expected by the government to provide but had an element of danger to its function, I would expect the government to insure me as well since they're more or less forcing me to do it. You're just too biased I think. No matter what, you're going to see a conspiracy in it, but you're not going to see the plethora of reasonable options therein.
    2
  10. ***** Look who's sore about losing now.
    2
  11. William LeConte What has been proven is that these things are non-ionizing radiation, and it's ionizing radiation that's known to cause cancer. Non-ionizing radiation includes things like infrared heat from a campfire.
    2
  12. ***** I don't care about what you just said.
    1
  13. ***** `No, II just don't care that you messaged me about it because I don't feel like talking about it with someone who doesn't matter.
    1
  14. ***** I don't know what thread you're talking about. Talk to me there then if that's the case. You don't need to follow me around to other unrelated threads. I don't even know your name.
    1
  15. Sarban Quite a bit. I'm personally agnostic-atheist, but I know many various orthodoxy and protestant beliefs as well as having read the Bible a few times.
    1
  16. ***** I just saw a post from the other thread you're talking about. We're not even discussing this matter -- we're discussing something entirely different, so why does arguing with you about cancer rates and RF radiation mean I should be inclined to discuss Hillary's spectrum of political stances in a thread about Hillary's religion? Work on your ability to reason.
    1
  17. Sarban I misread the posts. I thought at the time I made my post that he said that hillary was a creationist, and you were correcting him as though you said, "No, she's a Christian." Sorry about that. My bad.
    1
  18. ***** I responded to What's post, not yours. You didn't even have a post here before I made my first post. So apparently you have nothing better to do than follow me around. I feel you didn't matter here because your first post was doing nothing but setting up a straw man of things I never said or even implied. In your other thread, you actually made a solid argument so I was willing to give it some of my time. Is it that hard of a concept for you to get? It looks like you're the "moronic piece of shit."
    1
  19. ***** No, you just don't desire to admit you're wrong.
    1
  20. We are bathed in electromagnetic radiation by nature itself. Our existence is thanks in part to the ability to resist the effects of it pretty well. In fact, things like vision depend on it, as I'm sure you know. An amplitude and wavelength of the EM spectrum that's naturally one of the most common in our area of the universe is a pretty sketchy thing to be concerned about.
    1
  21. Tough Life proof or gtfo
    1
  22. Tough Life Maybe you're crazy. Ever think of that?
    1
  23. Tough Life As soon as I read that you thought anything you've said was intelligent, I just lost it.
    1
  24. Tough Life "You can't even accept basic legislation that has been law for 36 years as fact." I accept it as fact, but your reasoning on why it was passed is what I question.
    1
  25. ***** If you actually had an argument, you'd present it and not resort to ad hominem.
    1
  26. Cory Lay I'm not wrong, but I did really missword my post. I meant to say that ionizing radiation is what causes cancer and the radiation in question is not ionizing. I'm going to edit my post to reflect what I actually meant to say.
    1