Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

[Sieglinde]

I can find you sites with "scientific" proof by real scientists that the earth was created in seven days.

I find it interesting that those screaming about junk science didn't even look at this.
https://www.bioinitiative.org/media/spread-the-word/ ...

[arthunter]

I'd like to see that please.

I can find you sites with "scientific" proof by real scientists that the earth was created in seven days.

[Trail_Goddess]

To the contrary, many of us are well aware of the bioinitiavive report from evidence based sources.

Personally I'm willing to believe any damn thing, no matter how outlandish it is. But the more it goes against the body of well supported evidence based research the more thorough and robust the evidence needs to be. At this point I see no good reason the body of evidence on the safety of wireless is wrong.

[Trail_Goddess]

Here's some of them
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_...ist_scientists

I'd like to see that please.

[arthunter]

So what are we learning from this thread? That we can't trust scientists anywhere about anything? And, of course, multi billion dollar industries would never lie to us... right. The doctors selling cigarettes in the 50s comes to mind.

I trust personal experience. I represent a group of thousands of individuals who claim that they are purposely hit with electromagnetic frequencies for the purpose of brain research. Before you scoff at this do some research on Neuroscience. It's really quite amazing. The push to stop this non consensual experimentation is supported by ex NSA officials like William Binney and Karen Stewart, ex military members like David Voights and ex military microwave weapons experts like Barrie Trower. You'll find lots of info on these people by searching. This is quite serious.

The reason that I mention this in this thread is because many of these human lab rats are developing cancer, heart problems, joint problems, immunity problems, and blood abnormalities. This is being documented for a class action lawsuit. You should think about what you're defending here.

[Trail_Goddess]

Hopefully we are learning to use evidence when evaluating sources.
Finding Credible Sources

So what are we learning from this thread? That we can't trust scientists anywhere about anything? ...

[podfish]

I could care less what anyone thinks. .... If I found it to be a scam, like skeptics think, I would have quit along time ago.

see, that's the difference between a scientific and a faith-based approach. Someone interested in understanding a subject should be very interested in what other people think. Maybe most opinions you get are junk, but there may well be some ideas you haven't considered. Again, to use politics as an example, I'm extremely interested in how Trump supporters, especially the non-deplorables, explain their position.

You also show a complete misunderstanding of the word 'skeptic'. It doesn't mean someone who has an opposing position to yours. It's someone who hasn't been convinced yet. Often skeptics are the best source of insight into your own ideas because they either point out things you may be inadvertently blind to, or make you strengthen your own case.

If critiques of your ideas can't make you re-evaluate them, you're faith-based or using lazy logic. It's not all that hard to recognize and dismiss uninformed criticism.

[podfish]

I'd like to see that please.

google's awesome. I just put in:
"scientist says the earth was created in seven days"
and the fourth one down led me to Dr. Humphreys. This led me to his papers:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology...earth-history/

and

https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...a-young-world/

History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.37 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

admittedly, that's not exactly answering you question about 7 day creation. But I'd be quite surprised if he and his collaborators missed that considering the breadth of their papers.

[arthunter]

Who's evidence? It was found that Dr. Pan?, the guy advocating for mandatory vaccinations had ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I think personally I trust grassroots citizens committees more than the alternative.

Hopefully we are learning to use evidence when evaluating sources.

[Sieglinde]

I went to one of their presentations when I was a Fundamentalist Christian. I even had problems with some of it then. https://www.icr.org

I'd like to see that please.

[Trail_Goddess]

I'll take facts over alternative facts anytime. How do we know the difference? Science! How do we change scientific evidence? Better science! We can't even begin to solve actual problems if we can't stick to facts. Diverting to conspiracy theories and pseudoscience is counterproductive to understanding and problem solving.

Who's evidence? It was found that Dr. Pan?, the guy advocating for mandatory vaccinations had ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I think personally I trust grassroots citizens committees more than the alternative.

[Sieglinde]

There is an entire organization that believes this. https://www.icr.org

google's awesome. I just put in:
"scientist says the earth was created in seven days"
...

[Sieglinde]

That is certainly in line with the traditional American anti-intellectuallism. Welcome to Trump World, you are at home there.

Who's evidence? It was found that Dr. Pan?, the guy advocating for mandatory vaccinations had ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I think personally I trust grassroots citizens committees more than the alternative.

[Shandi]

There's an extensive amount of information on this site, and most of us won't take the time to read through all of it.

The health issues for children is a concern to me, since so many children are addicted to video games, along with many parents of babies glued to their phones with babies in their arms. Seems like people can't wait to get their kids hooked on them with their own personal phones as baby sitters, starting as early as 1 or 2 yrs. old. And it works!

I often see women and teens with a phone tucked into their bra or swimsuit top, and I've wondered if this might be a health concern. I've read reports of kids getting burns from falling asleep with a phone next to their skin.

Do men and young boys carry their phones in a swim suit or shorts pocket next to their genitals, with no fear of any consequences?

We may have to wait many years for conclusive evidence of harmful damage to the body, or be pro-actively "paranoid" by not risking it.

It took awhile for cigarettes to be linked to lung cancer, but even though it has been, people are still smoking. Is this paranoid delusion in the opposite direction?

So there's nothing on this thread but paranoid delusion? Does that diagnosis include the country of France?
https://ehtrust.org/france-new-natio...ursery-school/

[Shandi]

This site is religious based, so "scientific" conclusions might be biased.

There is an entire organization that believes this. https://www.icr.org

[arthunter]

It is grassroots organizations which are publishing scientific studies. Would government research do? https://www.defendershield.com/adver...-back-decades/

[Sasu]

But when will you read the science?
www.emfscientist.org
www.bioinitiative.org

I will troll for science until I die.

[podfish]

But when will you read the science?
www.emfscientist.org
www.bioinitiative.org

those are great. But really the traffic on this thread hasn't arisen primarily from challenges to the premise, though many of us are still unconvinced. But the discussion is shaped by the postings with reliance on unsubstantiated claims. Maybe it's a case of "squirrel!!", but when transparently bogus information is touted as evidence for a position, it obviously draws several of us into doing a lot of typing.

I've cited you before as someone who has spent a lot of time on this and who often provides interesting links. I appreciate that, even though I haven't been convinced that smartmeters are a significant threat. But I do find them interesting and they help keep me open-minded abut the issue. And really, the only reason it matters whether I'm convinced is there are political ramifications. Otherwise, who cares what I think? (except as entertainment value, as the disclaimer goes).

[Sasu]

Kids addicted to devices on 20/20

The health issues for children is a concern to me, since so many children are addicted to video games, along with many parents of babies glued to their phones with babies in their arms.

[podfish]

....of course, if you'd rather turn the thread into a thread of name calling instead of public safety,..

another topic that's hard to resist. This comes up once in a while when someone's point of view is being disparaged. Maybe I'm blind to it, or there are too many tl;dr posts on this thread - but, can you show me any instances of "name calling" ??

[arthunter]

Cell phone addiction on 60 minutes. Funny, can't find the video anywhere. https://tinyurl.com/m3ydkfl

[arthunter]

I was referring to the shill accusations.

another topic that's hard to resist. This comes up once in a while when someone's point of view is being disparaged. Maybe I'm blind to it, or there are too many tl;dr posts on this thread - but, can you show me any instances of "name calling" ??

[arthunter]

Once again, government research .
Adverse Bioeffects of EMF Radiation Shown in Government Research Going Back Decades

[Jude Iam]

"Better science" needed indeed:

https://www.ucsusa.org/center-scienc...l#.WSMjOFKZMcg

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...f_science.html

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/22/...lishers-sting/

"Science" costs money, lots, which comes from ...where? And comes with strings.
The difference between scientists and 'citizen scientists' is somewhat like the relationship between 'politicians' and activists: one does it for money, the other (at their own cost!) for morality.
Very challenging times. Jude

I'll take facts over alternative facts anytime. How do we know the difference? Science! How do we change scientific evidence? Better science! ...

[Sasu]

Is this it?
From 60 minutes Hooked on your phone? Texts and notifications, anxiety and phantom vibrations — Anderson Cooper talks about the impact smartphones have on teens and adults, particularly himself

Cell phone addiction on 60 minutes. Funny, can't find the video anywhere. https://tinyurl.com/m3ydkfl

[podfish]

"Science" costs money, lots, which comes from ...where? And comes with strings.
The difference between scientists and 'citizen scientists' is somewhat like the relationship between 'politicians' and activists: one does it for money, the other (at their own cost!) for morality.
Very challenging times. Jude

hell if I know why, it's not all that apropos, but the saying about the different ways pigs and chickens feel about a traditional breakfast comes to mind: the chicken's involved, but the pig's committed.

Maybe surprisingly I think the role of the activist better matches the chicken. There are typically little or no consequences for being wrong at the top of your lungs, and the "at (their) own cost" is literally their own.

Politicians actually have to accept the consequences of what they do, and the costs of their actions/mistakes/misdeeds are borne by a lot of people. I guess I'm saying they're pigs. So if your point of view is that all the bums are only in it for themselves, I guess all you can do is trust amateurs. The pros who actually implement policy have a lot of pressures - from business interests who contribute to their campaigns, from other politicians trying to make deals, from activists, some from organized crime. They have to reconcile those with their own personal ethical positions. And they have to consider the art of the possible - they're NOT activists, they actually are the ones responsible for implementing change.

Most things can't be changed without cooperation from others with conflicting interests. So you get all kinds of results, depending on how they balance all of these. You brought in politicians, but here we're talking mainstream scientists. They have many of the same forces, though getting grants substitutes for getting contributions. Purity is swell, but realistically the challenge is to be able to compromise without violating your ethics.

[podfish]

I just love your name calling. It really helps invalidate your status as a person of reason. Count me in as green with pointed ears also. I will troll for science until I die.

oh yeah, when I posted earlier about "who's name calling?" I was thinking more of those on the skeptical side... I forgot him!!

and to be fair, he never called anyone a shill. He did call someone a troll, but only in one post out of the snowstorm we've had since this thread revived from the dead.

[arthunter]

Yes. That's it. The actual segment was called "brain hacking". I did find a copy of the story on CBS but you had to sign up to watch it. Don't have time to search right now but I did find a preview https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/preview-brain-hacking/ and a good explanation https://www.ineffableisland.com/2017...ed-by.html?m=1

Is this it?
From 60 minutes Hooked on your phone? ...

[Sieglinde]

Exactly, just as the antivaxxer EMF sensitive, quack medicine etc. sites are

This site is religious based, so "scientific" conclusions might be biased.

[Sieglinde]

Most name calling as come from the anti smart meter side accusing those who think they are OK or at least not a problem are accused of working for corporate interests.

another topic that's hard to resist. This comes up once in a while when someone's point of view is being disparaged. Maybe I'm blind to it, or there are too many tl;dr posts on this thread - but, can you show me any instances of "name calling" ??