Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Nov 28, 16:19
2: Nov 28, 09:42
3: Nov 27, 18:07
4: Nov 27, 12:04
5: Nov 27, 08:26
6: Nov 26, 18:06
7: Nov 26, 12:05
8: Nov 26, 08:29
9: Nov 25, 18:33
10: Nov 25, 11:12
11: Nov 25, 07:08
12: Nov 24, 13:17
13: Nov 23, 18:13
14: Nov 23, 06:17
15: Nov 22, 13:24
16: Nov 22, 09:09
17: Nov 21, 22:36
18: Nov 21, 14:03
19: Nov 21, 10:18
20: Nov 21, 07:35
Posts: 168
In response to
"
people are gonna go nuts but you heard it hear first: A branch of the WHO says cell phones may cause cancer. -- (link)
"
by
loosilu
Go nuts? It's been a given hasn't it? -- nm
Posted by
lileve (aka lileve)
May 31 '11, 10:02
(No message)
Responses:
No, it's been constantly dismissed as quack science for a decade. -- nm
-
Beryllium
May 31, 10:03
6
I wouldn't say that. Results have been characterized as inconclusive. Not at all quackish. -- nm
-
loosilu
May 31, 10:03
5
it's non-ionizing radiation. There shouldn't be risk. -- nm
-
Reagen
May 31, 10:19
4
isn't radar non-ionizing as well? Microwave, too? -- nm
-
Beryllium
May 31, 10:50
1
(I believe both of them have documented ill effects for us fleshbags, although usually only in high doses) -- nm
-
Beryllium
May 31, 10:51
and Titanic shouldn't have needed those life boats.
-
loosilu
May 31, 10:25
1
Keep the ice cubes in your Diet Coke to a managable size. -- nm
-
Dr.Vermin
May 31, 10:48
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
