So, my comment which had a source reference of a study showing cell phone use during pregnancy to have no effect on 2800 banies gets removed, but the spam advertiser stays in?
This is pretty funny. I think these people are not closing the lid so they know which bins have been hit already.
A couple of years ago, police in Roseville, CA busted some recycling thieves stealing bundled cardboard. Apparently cardboard fetches up to $100/ton and people were just showing up in the middle of the night and taking all of the cardboard recycling. It would seem our local pilferers have yet to discover beige gold.
I was mostly asking what the content of this article had to do with local news and why would it be a cover story in a local newspaper. I am not trying to debate what form of premature speculation we should or should not copy as policy from Europeans.
It would seem a little premature to warn people about the speculative health issues related to our drinking water. I don't really see how that relates to the NCJ article. Even so, this Eco-News article at least sounds like it related to the region and was not just some syndicated article passed off as a local cover story.
"Studies suggest" and "evidence suggests" but no reference of studies or evidence.
These articles go over some of the research about BPA and phthalates:
EHNs list of their experts:
The original article:
I have my own reservations about a non-profit org which assumes a name similar to a credible org by dropping the "National Institute of" part. Other people can believe what they want
and good on them for avoiding polycarbonates or whatever it is people will be afraid of next week.
My question is what does this have to do with the North Coast? Has the NCJ run out of topics to the point of running random syndicated articles as cover stories?
Existing data suggests EMF alarmists are just EMF alarmists.
European countries like to keep their RF levels unnecessarily low. Americans prefer good reception.
If you don't like too much reading:
BioInitiative report is not prestigious, it is the self-published (not peer-reviewed or even published in a scientific journal) report of 14 alarmist scientists. The thousands or so other scientists who work on this subject do not agree with these self-published conclusions.
While EMF is on the WHO list of possible carcinogens, note the word "possible." Coconut oil is also on this list. Bruce Ames' test has revealed that grapefruit seeds can also have mutagenic effects. It is very difficult to rationally say something is a possible carcinogen therefore we must take immediate action and implement public safety limits for exposure.
Visible, non-UV light is much stronger than cellular radiation. Should we regulate a safe distance from lightbulbs?
People should try harder to differentiate between what is popular on the Internet and what is genuine cause for alarm.
I do appreciate it when people speak out about power lines, wifi, radio towers, etc. as it provides a baseline for how seriously to take their words when they speak about other subjects.
"Cancer", "Alas" was using the 1,000 cubic yard maximum I cited and trying to make a negative point with it.
For cubic yards of compost, I am referring to this table:
Agricultural material derived from an agricultural site and returned to the same site or agricultural site owned or leased by the owner, parent, or subsidiary
(< 1,000 yd3 given away or sold annually)"
I was hoping to get a citation for why Carrie wrote "If the dairy composts onsite — which McCall says it might do later — it will need a permit for that"
There is probably no point, I am just weary of all the unsourced information that continues to be tossed around.
All Comments »
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation