General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

7. Yeah, but that's inattentiveness. Lipstick can kill too and not just because I'm drop-dead gorgeous.

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 06:02 PM

Aug 2012

j/k I'm no swimsuit model and I don't wear make-up.

However, the OP is about radiation. Apparently, there's no consensus if there is a danger or how much is dangerous. It seems kind of like saying, "Don't swim after you've eaten" without declaring how long you should wait. A half-hour? An hour? Three days?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Kucinich's Brain Afflicted by Cell Phone Radiation Horseshit [View all] Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 OP

You object to knowing how much radiation is coming that close to your brain... 99Forever Aug 2012 #1

How much is too much? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #2

Cell phone use can kill you. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #5

Yeah, but that's inattentiveness. Lipstick can kill too and not just because I'm drop-dead gorgeous. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #7

... Major Nikon Aug 2012 #6

ROFL, taking a cheap shot at people who think science is hard snooper2 Aug 2012 #3

because as a physicist I know the difference Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #4

Ted Kennedy's surgeon - the best in the country -- said what about cell phones? KurtNYC Aug 2012 #8

SHHHH! redqueen Aug 2012 #11

Dr. Gupta's reputation is far from stellar NickB79 Aug 2012 #14

Sanjay Gupta is the Generation X version of Dr. Bob Arnot RZM Aug 2012 #24

Didn't say GUPTA was the best neurosurgeon in the country. Allen Friedman was. KurtNYC Aug 2012 #38

The same Sanjay Gupta Confusious Aug 2012 #30

he gets paid to say things but not enough apparently to put a cell phone against his own head KurtNYC Aug 2012 #37

A $5 Chinese-made headpiece? Zalatix Aug 2012 #35

Well Mr Physicist... 99Forever Aug 2012 #16

Interesting. A friend of mine was diagnosed recently with a very rare form of cancer which is sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #18

Was it glioma (aka "GBM") ? KurtNYC Aug 2012 #39

I believe it may have been. I had not heard of it before as it is not a common form of cancer, the sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #41

I think you could have made your case without taking such a swipe at Kucinich. Raine1967 Aug 2012 #9

You're right. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #12

Me, too. "Mostly" applies to all politicians. Zalatix Aug 2012 #36

You want science? you come with name calling and industry studies but you claim you want science.. KurtNYC Aug 2012 #10

Thank you. +1. Between the totally fantastic and the completely dogmatic, it gets tiresome. n/t Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #13

You want science? Try this. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #15

That's not very convincing. Prometheus Bound Aug 2012 #20

Well, that's the way science works. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #21

Here from your own source -- "suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma," KurtNYC Aug 2012 #40

"But ... shortcomings ... prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions" Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #42

I love how the ACS KT2000 Aug 2012 #28

Well it seems he says .. 99Forever Aug 2012 #17

We should be on the side of caution anyway. limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #19

If you want to worry about something that industry pooh-poohs, Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #22

I lived near Slater School in Fresno, Ca.. many had cancer from the powerlines annm4peace Aug 2012 #23

Did they really? Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #29

if they had the funds to keep the study going they could have annm4peace Aug 2012 #32

once again Kuch's trying to do something for the people... wildbilln864 Aug 2012 #25

If there's no harm, then what's the harm in knowing? MADem Aug 2012 #26

I don't believe they're harmless. emilyg Aug 2012 #27

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #31

I'm sure it will be about as useful as the California prop 65 warning that is pretty much on every.. yawnmaster Aug 2012 #33

There is no real argument here. jonthebru Aug 2012 #34