Jill Stein did a Reddit AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5a2d2l/title_jill_stein_answers_your_questions/d9d867l) recently and said something that's probably one of the stupidest things a 2016 presidential candidate has said this year, which is quite a feat. Here it is:
QuoteA number of scientific studies have raised red flags about possible health effects of WiFi radiation on young children. I do not have a personal opinion that WiFi is or isn't a health issue for children. There is not enough information to know. I do however believe in science. Scientific research should go forward and find out. Countries including Switzerland, Italy, France, Austria, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Russia and China, have banned or restricted these technologies in schools.
These concerns were ignited by a recent National Institutes of Health study that provided some of the strongest evidence to date that exposure to radiation from cell phones and wireless devices is associated with the formation of rare cancers. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/
If we believe in science, which i think most Redditors do, let's follow the science where it takes us.
I'd refute what she's saying, but I think the Redditors already did a superb job. And -3213 points? That's like "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy" territory.
And it gets worse. Her website (http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_answers_science_questions) doubles down on this bullshit.
QuoteDr. Stein said in response to a question about wireless internet in schools: “We should not be subjecting kids’ brains especially to that… We don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe, where they do, they have good precautions around wireless, maybe not good enough.†What precautions should be taken around wireless internet and why?
What actually happened is that a parent raised concerns about the possible health effects of WiFi radiation on developing children, and I agreed that more research is needed. It may surprise many people that over 200 scientific experts in the field have called for more research into the health effects of radiation from devices like cellphones and WiFi, especially on developing children, and a number of countries have banned or restricted these technologies in schools. These concerns were amplified by a recent National Institutes of Health study that provided “some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure [to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices] is associated with the formation of rare cancers…â€
Scientists don’t know for sure if these technologies are safe for children, and as a doctor, I’d rather take precautions until the research is more conclusive. Protecting children’s health and respecting the scientific process is more important to me than giving simple, politically correct answers.
Let me tell you guys a little secret about WiFi. In reality, it's actually not harmful. (http://www.howtogeek.com/234817/dont-worry-wi-fi-isnt-dangerous/) Your average access point simply isn't very powerful and people are typically at least a few dozen feet away - and because of how space works, wireless signals degrade pretty quickly the further you are from the source.
Eating a banana (and thus absorbing miniscule amounts of ionizing radiation) is probably more harmful than being in range of a wireless access point. Or being outside for 5 minutes on a sunny day. Or typing under the glow of an incandescent lightbulb. Or being somewhat near power lines. Or eating radscorpion meat. Basically, any normal, commonplace activity.
Put it this way, I would eat my own shoes if what Jill Stein is talking about - WiFi hurting children - has any validity.
And to think that I seriously considered voting for Stein during the ClintonVSTrump rush to the bottom. Granted, I'm not happy with any of the choices on offer, but I'd rather have a Prez who's scientifically literate than a buffoon who panders to people's irrational fears for votes. And I don't like Trump much, either.
Why is it that 3rd party candidates seem crazier than *I* am? I could do better. I'm almost tempted... Almost.
"Forget conclusive research, I'll look within myself to find the answer about wifi" -Jill Stein
Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 03, 2016, 03:42:47 AM
"Forget conclusive research, I'll look within myself to find the answer about wifi" -Jill Stein
And she is, technically, the 4th most possible president... Scary.
She isn't the real candidate, none of them are. All the VP candidates are Dick Cheney in disguise ... read on another string about Bill Deep CFR Weld, the Libertarian VP! Apparently there has been a crazy cloning experiment gone out of control at CIA HQ.
I am so surprised at the lack of support for Jill Stein ... her VP is not only Black, he is an actual intellectual (unlike Barak Obama).
Jill Stein said:
QuoteScientists don’t know for sure if these technologies are safe for children, and as a doctor, I’d rather take precautions until the research is more conclusive.
and
QuoteI do not have a personal opinion that WiFi is or isn't a health issue for children. There is not enough information to know. I do however believe in science. Scientific research should go forward and find out.
and
QuoteWhat actually happened is that a parent raised concerns about the possible health effects of WiFi radiation on developing children, and I agreed that more research is needed.
All she is saying is we don't know if it is safe and before we say it is we need to conduct the research. Isn't that what a responsible person does, wait for the data before passing judgment?
Quote from: Hurt on November 06, 2016, 04:48:29 PMAll she is saying is we don't know if it is safe and before we say it is we need to conduct the research. Isn't that what a responsible person does, wait for the data before passing judgment?
In the same vein, I do not have a personal opinion about whether or not chemtrails cause homosexuality as part of an elaborate globalist plot to curb population growth and institute a new world order. Why do I bring it up? No reason.
Quote from: Hurt on November 06, 2016, 04:48:29 PM
Jill Stein said: andandAll she is saying is we don't know if it is safe and before we say it is we need to conduct the research. Isn't that what a responsible person does, wait for the data before passing judgment?
For many people here, Science is G-d, and Technology is his Prophet.
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2016, 06:45:47 PMFor many people here, Science is G-d, and Technology is his Prophet.
Well, science is the difference between humans dwelling in houses and humans dwelling in caves. It's pretty important stuff. It also trumps religion and personal opinion and apparently, that's undesirable to lots of people.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 06, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
Well, science is the difference between humans dwelling in houses and humans dwelling in caves. It's pretty important stuff. It also trumps religion and personal opinion and apparently, that's undesirable to lots of people.
Yes, and it will all be worth it, the endless expansion of the numbers and ecological footprint of humanity, as it destroys this planet. Yeah, humanity! Serial killers have desires (to kill) and think it undesirable to be stopped. I don't think that alone vetts what they do or think.
The solution to misused knowledge is not ignorance.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 06, 2016, 07:14:08 PM
The solution to misused knowledge is not ignorance.
Ignorance will come, when humanity completes the "flies in a bottle" experiment ... because you can't have much knowledge, living a subsistence existence in a mud hut. That is why no alien has visited us, and why we won't explore the stars ... we are part of Earth's ecology, not superior to it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 03, 2016, 02:01:55 AM
Or eating radscorpion meat.
Properly prepared, radscorpion meat is a great source of nutrition.
After consumption it also increases your resistance to directed energy weapons. This probably includes Wi-Fi.
To be fair we have been trained to reject "common knowledge" as untrustworthy for many decades now. Most recently we have the likes of Faux "News" and Breitbart, but before that we had decades of corporate misinformation being able to shape laws as the lead industry claimed lead was safe to use in everything from gasoline to paint and the tobacco industry being allowed to state that there was no evidence of harmful or addictive effects of tobacco. Is it any wonder people don't trust science when our own government has been spreading mistrust of science for decades to allow corporations to keep making a profit off the deaths of millions? Right now it's climate change science that people within our own government are spreading misinformation about. How can you expect the people to trust science when our own government is telling them not to or, worse, outright lying to the people about it in order to maintain corporate profits?
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 06, 2016, 05:04:14 PM
In the same vein, I do not have a personal opinion about whether or not chemtrails cause homosexuality as part of an elaborate globalist plot to curb population growth and institute a new world order. Why do I bring it up? No reason.
Not in the same vein at all, is it?
Here is a similar vein: I don't know if the BP oil spill in the gulf, including the dispersants, are causing the shellfish to be unhealthy for human consumption. Until more research is done my happy ass will not be feeding it to my children thank you very fucking much.
Quote from: Hurt on November 07, 2016, 08:56:28 PM
Not in the same vein at all, is it?
Here is a similar vein: I don't know if the BP oil spill in the gulf, including the dispersants, are causing the shellfish to be unhealthy for human consumption. Until more research is done my happy ass will not be feeding it to my children thank you very fucking much.
That is part of the problem of trusting authority, but only if it has D on its forehead. Not that I would trust the R on the forehead either. Empirically, you can't know if shooting yourself in the head hurts, unless you try it for yourself.