So, we’re supposed to forget the massive ballot tampering in Califonia, the shredded ballots, the whited out ballots, the vanished ballots-the vast majority of which opposed Clinton. But this pandering for an extra half percent on the part of the greens is supposed to make us upset?
Clinton doesn’t merely want republicans horrified with trump to vote for her, she wants liberals to be horrified by the green party as well. Its hard to believe that the TPP is somehow more benign than what Jill Stein believes about wifi. Bottom line, Jill Stein can be pretty awful before I like Clinton more than her. And she’s still going to be better than Trump no matter what she says.
[quote=“chromakey, post:34, topic:82521”]
Again, just playing devil’s advocate here…
It hasn’t been proven that GSM transmissions from beside one’s brain are without long-term potential risk of harm…
. But I’m certainly happy to wait for some further replication of the study before I dismiss its concerns as impossible
…I’m not the flat-earther …[/quote]
Nice try at putting words in my mouth. But about the substance of your comments.
As you know, “science” can’t prove a negative: there is no way to ever prove effect A doesn’t produce effect B. More replication studies may reduce the probabilities, but “impossible” is, well, an impossible standard.
Whether or not you use cell phones, your comments suggest a deeply inconsistent approach to risk management. That’s fine for your personal conduct, but on a public forum I am going to point out such malleability.
She’s a holistic fearmongering crank. Vaccine “safety” which is not a concern no matter how loudly people scream “big pharm”, wifi “allergy”, “FRANKENFOOD”, homeopathy, she’s an advocate for garbage thinking.
There’s nothing off about calling woo-peddlers and quacks cranks.
I am not clear what Stein’s quoted comments have to do with fear or fearmongering. It is not unusual for people to proceed through life with incomplete risk criteria. I just accept that and do what I need to do.
Know what? I dig “harmless” things out of the ground, and out of buildings, and make sure it gets treated specially and put in special dumps where it can be managed appropriately. All of these things were not considered carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic as recently, in some cases, as last year. None of these previously “harmless” materials were regulated prior to the late 20th century.
Excuse me, but you sound rather like a lead salesman in 1950. Or a DDT shill in the 60s, or asbestos until the 70s, or PCBs until the 80s. Or anyone who ever found a thing useful, and assumed the best.
We ARE researching it, your naysaying will likely, if past revolutionary technologies serve as any model, sound a bit overstated. My whole point is that as a scientist with a sense of history and perspective, her point of view is hopefully as laughable as you make it out to be. Because after all, we know everything about the intersection of biology and technology, everything worth knowing at least. Right?
I hope BoingBoing editors and commentors are not going to wax hysterical over everyone who advocates the precautionary principle.
I’m no green party supporter, but linking doctors who voice concerns about big pharma and demonstrate an awareness of the realities of possible adverse effects with “anti-vaxxers” is a cheap shot.
I would say this is more evidence that “no candidate is ever perfect.”
I’m not sure I would like Stein in the WH anyway, because you have to actually work with congress to get stuff done, and I suspect she would stick to her guns too much. Bernie already had a long tenure in the Senate, so I trust he knows the best way to proceed with actually passing legislation.
Not an ideal example – tetraethyl lead was known to be lethal by the 1920s. Its neurotoxicity was never in doubt. Industry just decided to go on using it anyway.
It sucks to be me?? Hey man; don’t piss on my rug. I’m voting for Stein. I don’t see this piddly little issue as anything worth much. She’s a doctor expressing an opinion… big deal.
As a surfing audio engineer I’m out of my league with any wave physics concerning fequencies over 20KHz or H2O amplitudes over 6ft!
For those interested though, one of the better breakdowns I’ve found so far of the more “radical” arguments surrounding these concerns was this 30min doco from the frequencies of Australia’s national broadcaster:
As I understand it, the reason she’s receiving so much criticism is that she expresses her doubts in such a way as to allow anti-vaxxers to maintain their views while agreeing with her. So yes, calling her an ‘anti-vaxxer’ is a cheap shot. However, she is aware of this criticism and yet seems to balk at clarifying her position as one of skepticism towards the pharmaceutical industry and its regulation.
Well, at this point, if we’re moving the goalpost to include wifi “allergy” and “frankenfood”, we might as well haul out the entire wacky Green Party platform… Platform - www.gp.org
