Microwave Safety

A fajita uses strips of meat, while a burrito is typically mostly beans or rice.

This, generally, though fajitas can sometimes have black beans. Most reliable distinction is that fajitas have large chunks of sautéed bell peppers and onions with the meat. Usually not much else on them, though average amerifags will add cheese, sour cream, etc.

A proper burrito has beans (refried, pinto, or black), rice, some kind of meat (usually chicken, pork, or barbocoa a type of barbecue-like shredded beef), and may also have corn, sauteed vegetables such as peppers and onions. I have never seen a burrito made with a corn tortilla, you're probably thinking of something called, "tacos". Corn falls apart too easily and usually isn't used. Also, you absolutely must grill, steam, or otherwise heat said flour tortilla. You might see any number of other ingredients such as sour cream, shredded cheese, guacamole, salsa, or lettuce. I like to add shredded bacon to mine.

I believe burritos originated from areas near the US-Mexican border, particularly among Mexican-American communities in California or Texas and aren't originally a type of Mexican food. More accurate to call them Tex Mex, or Cali Mex, which is absolutely not the same as Mexican and is a separate culinary tradition.

Fajita is simply a style of cooking meat. Fajita meat can be used in a burrito, or taco, or you can it it by itself with rice, beans, veggies, etc. Poultry is not considered traditional fajita meat, but you can make fajita chicken, you just have to specify that when you're white and ordering from a restaurant. Fajitas are made from beef/cattle, from a cut of meat called "skirt steak".

Sorry for the novel, just got to set you fools straight how does nobody know what a burrito is.

>Sorry for the novel, just got to set you fools straight how does nobody know what a burrito is.
Because I'm just a dumb American. My means to delineate and define culinary dishes extends only to how I've seen them used and referred to.

here

Also, stupid gimmick that caught on in American restaurants: fajitas are almost always served in a "deconstructed" form. You get a sizzle plate of sautéed ingredients (pic related), and if it's a really Americanized chain restaurant, usually little ramekins of cheeses, salsas, pico de gallo, etc., along with a stack of warm tortillas, so you can make your own.

I never really understood that, personally, and I have no idea how it started. But it's somehow impressive enough to the general public that restaurants can afford to charge 12-15 bucks for an order.

t. former career cook

I don't blame you, most Americans don't even know what queso is. I live in Texas and eat this stuff almost every day. I don't know how northerners live their lives without this amazing food.

I agree, that is pretty strange and never made sense to me. Like why can't they just serve it like any other food? I guess it's the presentation of it, makes it seem more exotic or something. Gethcya some SIZZLIN FAJITA.

Thank you based Lone Star. I'm Canadian and have a thing for spicy dishes, but the rest of my family is too white to try anything authentic so I'm forced to keep it to myself and friends.

I mean, it does make people turn and look, when a server walks by with a loudly sizzling cast iron plate- Which you can smell from twenty feet away. There's a "perception of value" thing there, which is what all food presentation is about. Feels like you're getting something special, so you aren't thinking about how, between ingredients, labor and overhead, it probably cost the restaurant about four bucks to make that order.

Nobody likes roasted nuts

That isn't because of leaky microwaves, that is because of the massive fucking transformer it uses. I use those transformers for spot welding and I have to keep it away from all my equipment when I turn it on even without the secondary coil being shorted. Those transformers are built around bad eddy currents.

I have a molcajete and tejolote. Sometimes I make "chicken molcajete" in it. It is godly. I can make tons of Mexican, Aztec, and Americanized versions with it. I even grow my own corn for masa/nixtamal, veggies for salsa, even tomatillos.

Damn it, now I'm hungry and the tomatillos are long from being ripe. I have home canned salsa but it is nothing like making it fresh.

because thats the point you fucking spaz

you get 1.5 chicken breasts, a bunch of onions/peppers, unlimited fresh tortillas, unlimited sides (lettuce, cheese, sauce, etc) and you fucking make as many as you want to eat.

jesus have you ever enjoyed life, can you actually look in the direction people point, or do you get hung up looking at their finger

ffs just kys now

Havent heard this one

You got a source for that? Genuinely curious

I'll just link a (slightly hostile) thread I made earlier.
I included some further reading towards the end. For more it's a good idea to check the citations, and search for something like "hsp70 microwave" and "radiation VGCC(or voltage gated calcium channel)".

>I'm a science idiot
I can see that.

>what are electrostatic dipoles?
>what is resonance?

>he doesn't wear a chastity belt made of lead at all time
It's like you want females to steal your virgin power you fag.

/b/ is awesome or at least was in the past

Admit it, Veeky Forums turning into /b/ would be an improvement.

It's quackery. This guy keeps peddling the same five badly designed studies published by people who believe they are sensitive to EMF.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27066469

Well I'm hungry now

>Implying only five studies exist
Read passed the abstracts. Do some of your own searches with the keywords I outlined above. Pick up a textbook on basic physics and neuroscience.

>www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27066469
Speaking of poor quality literature...
This is about "dirty electricity" anyway, which is something I don't have much of an opinion about. Either you skimmed the abstract and thought it supported your pre-set opinion, or you don't understand what the conversation is about. Probably both.

Hell, what you linked -includes- one of the papers I linked as a citation. Though it's never actually used in the paper, nor are voltage gated calcium channels mentioned beyond the title of that paper.

Just stop embarrassing yourself. The elevation of heat shock protein expression with microwave exposure has been repeatedly verified to the point where mainstream science has more or less acknowledged it. I've already told you the causative mechanics at work. The next step is for denial to fade and people to accept that things ain't always the way they want.

Also, I just want to tack on because of how utterly inane and asinine your behavior is, if you're content to be driven by dogma, faith, and like clinging to pseudoscience (yes, this exchange is that ironic. My stance is the non-mainstream one, and yet those who oppose it are the pseudoscientists. Beautiful), why are you even here?

It would take longer for you to get a response on here than to google it but you probably don't give a crap do you?

>most Americans don't even know what queso is
did I just get trolled softly? Queso is cheese dude. Cheese. Everyone fucking knows what cheese is.

even if that mechanism were true (and it isn't), we have yet to see any epidemiological evidence for links between microwave ovens and cancer.

>even if that mechanism were true (and it isn't)
It is.

>microwave ovens
>cancer.
Both irrelevant. Wi-Fi works at the same frequency as microwave ovens, and this effect is observed whether it's GSM-900, 1800, Wi-Fi, etc.

Sorry bud, I don't make the rules. Right now, that's the way it looks, and probably, that's the way it is. Don't like it? Go somewhere else, to some universe that suits you tastes better. As long as you're here, you denial doesn't change anything, nor does trying to shift the topic.

There still isn't evidence for any meaningful health effects.

And no, it isn't. You know how I know? Because if that was actually happening to any degree, tissue would be melting off your body because every cell was going through programmed cell death from the extreme stress of indiscriminately activated signaling pathways.

You are bathed in electromagnetic radiation every second of your life and yet you are still a whole, complete being.

I'm not that guy, but I guess you're "most Americans," user. Queso does literally mean cheese, but the American use refers more to nacho/liquid cheese than to solid cheese.

>tfw chopped off my balls
I never got why men were so attached to their balls, I never cared about them.

>There still isn't evidence for any meaningful health effects.
There is. Voltage gated calcium channels regulate everything from neurotransmitter release to aspects of gene expression. When you have Ca2+ ions able to enter the cell membrane during its resting state, when they shouldn't be there, it can degrade cellular machinery. This causes upregulation of hsp70 etc, which attempts to repair the damage. Chronic elevation of DNA and cellular damage repair proteins has been long studied and is known to be harmful. There's also the matter of misfolded proteins.

>Because if that was actually happening to any degree, tissue would be melting off your body
Not about specific absorption rate. Thermals are irrelevant, the effect is nonthermal and involves altering voltage gradients across the cell membrane (which is why pulsed fields like those used in digital transmission are more active than static fields, which tend to be largely directional). Among other things, like possible minute cell ruffling altering membrane potential.

>because every cell was going through programmed cell death from the extreme stress of indiscriminately activated signaling pathways.
This isn't how it works. Machines aren't magic, learn how they work. Reductionism was successful for a reason.

>You are bathed in electromagnetic radiation every second of your life
The atmosphere significantly attenuates the majority of the microwave band. So no, life has not historically been bathed in microwaves, nor have you. And apparently it doesn't react well to it.

Bit by bit user, you're edging forward. You have to realize I've heard all of these arguments before, almost word for word (eg "bathed in radiation every day" alternately, "bombarded by radiation from space every day"). No offense intended, but maybe you should think about what that might mean.

Oh man, where is my head today. I completely forgot the role of VGCCs in maintaining blood brain barrier permeability! Microwaves also cause the BBB (made of glia) to be become more permeable. This is actually being investigated as a way to get eg chemo drugs into the brain. In a healthy person, this is decidedly negative.

All of this has also been confirmed in mice, so it's not simply in vitro of theory. Their lives were sacrificed for this, and yet you pseudoscientists persist.

I'm a molecular biologist. You don't need to tell me how voltage gated channels work.

>This isn't how it works. Machines aren't magic, learn how they work. Reductionism was successful for a reason.
That's absolutely how it works. You put any significant stress on a cell, it dies. That stress can be too much signaling input, too much redox stress, too many misfolded proteins, too many proteins period can do it if the stress is bad enough. If your hypothesis is that EMR can cause aberrant signaling by stimulating voltage-gated ion channels toward a negative health effect, then there's a clear prediction of that hypothesis, and that's that you should see the effects of aberrant signaling. And we don't.

>You have to realize I've heard all of these arguments before, almost word for word
Then you should know that you're wrong.

>I'm a molecular biologist. You don't need to tell me how voltage gated channels work.
Good. It's dualistic then, you'll either piece it together more quickly, or you'll have an unreasonably high threshold of resistance.

>You put any significant stress on a cell, it dies.
Because it's binary, right? Either the cell is A-okay or it's dead, right? Hence why the keyword in your disingenuous statement is "significant". user, you already know. Stop this obnoxious behavior.

The response of a machine to stress is dependent on its state, the stress, and its external environment. Not all stress is the same, not all stress will trigger apoptosis or produce necrotic cell destruction. The obvious key here is the -nature- of the stress, how it works in short term acute cases (limited window for hormesis) and how it pans out with chronic exposure. In this case it's simply the entrance of calcium ions when they shouldn't be there, and none of the related downstream mechanics result in factor to outright kill the effected cell, at least without chronic exposure. Some cell types are also more susceptible than other, like pyramidal cells (or cells in the G2 phase in the rest of the body, or those in the brain that replicate).

>Then you should know that you're wrong.
It's how I know I'm right.

Now put that degree to use. Go read some of the papers I linked. If you show interest, I'll put some effort into tracking down some that talk about hippocampal and pyramidal cells specifically.

Also, for the fuck of it I'll mention the knowledge that microwaves interact with biological systems has been around since the late 60's. We were researching using them to modulate bone growth before plate fusion, for fuck's sake.

Lol Veeky Forums is scientifically illiterate.

Microwaves are far, far too weak to induce any sort of damage to your DNA, meaning your balls. Even ionizing radiation(x-rays) below about 7.5 mSv(like a chest CT scan at the hospital) is too low to damage your DNA or kill cells.

All of the pseudo-intellectuals spouting all of this garbage to appear intelligent, are simply that. We have never even been able to show a link between low doses of ionizing radiation and cancer with a few unlikely exceptions that still don't have conclusive evidence, let alone fucking microwaves. You might as well say that your television remote gives you cancer, being that it emits IR waves, much more powerful than microwaves, let alone visible light. Microwaves are as large as an insect, nothing like x-rays, the size of an atom, which could significantly interact with the atoms of your body.

I don't know what the retards above me are blabbing about, but I know mostly about ionizing radiation and how it interacts with our body, specifically via medical imaging.

>Microwaves are far, far too weak to induce any sort of damage to your DNA
Microwaves can induce double and single strand breaks in DNA.

Ionization is not the only mechanism for chemical change, just like jumpers are not the only mechanism to interact with the state of your computer.

There's nothing better than home cooked Mexican food.

Typical ignorant American response, I've heard it a thousand times before. See The proper name I guess would be "chile con queso". Yes "queso" means cheese, but when you say "let's eat queso", you're referring to melted liquidy deliciousness usually consumed hot/warm via salted tortilla chips. Kinda like cheese fondue without the open heat source, it's heavenly for such a simple dish.

>Microwaves can induce double and single strand breaks in DNA.

Define "can" and "induce"

>Ionization is not the only mechanism for chemical change,

I know this. I also know that microwaves have just about no way in normal life to induce any sort of DNA damage, and you're probably that moron I was arguing with in the medical imaging thread on Veeky Forums that also thinks WiFi gives you brain cancer.

Don't feel like it. My exchange with user above done tired me all out from the realization I'm yet again, dimly misusing my time. So I'm off to try to do something more tangibly meaningful.

Here. There aren't many pages. I'd do research on this if I didn't mind killing mice.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Microwave "single strand"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Microwave "double strand"

I'm not reading things that people who say that microwaves induce damage to DNA give to me as it goes against electromagnetism. Anyone educated at a high school physics level knows that you're a quack and I'm not giving you a second chance to argue your idiotic claims.

>or you'll have an unreasonably high threshold of resistance.
Because I actually know what I'm talking about.

>and none of the related downstream mechanics result in factor to outright kill the effected cell, at least without chronic exposure
So let me recap what you're saying - this happens, but it's not enough to kill the cell, and we also know that it's not enough to cause increased rates of disease at any detectable level in human populations. It happens, but it's inconsequential.

Your argument rests on a mechanism that has not been well demonstrated and posits health consequences that have never been shown to exist. You've made up this issue out of whole cloth.

>also thinks WiFi gives you brain cancer.
The beautiful thing about this statement is that I never once said that, you did. You just made it up and projected onto me, and have just now proven you're not very good at avoiding confusing your own inferences and thoughts for other people's, and reality itself. If you disagree and want a bit of a trip, go back to the thread and re-read it. I'm relatively uninterested in carcinogenesis angle as yet, I don't really know why. That's how I know.

Pretty par for the course, really. Imagine living in such a muddled haze.
Bye.

>DNA give to me as it goes against electromagnetism
Mechanism isn't ionization. Cells are not solid state units, they're machines made of small granular parts. Bear this in mind going forward.

>Because I actually know what I'm talking about.
If only. You certainly haven't shown it.

>but it's not enough to kill the cell
Not immediately, and not inherently. Although it can, and albumin leakage through the BBB can be toxic. Otherwise it just induces mild to moderate dysfunction.

>we also know that it's not enough to cause increased rates of disease
We quite obviously don't. In fact, if you'd read anything or think at all, it'd be apparent the evidence points to the inverse. Towards involvement in a number of disease clusters.

Brush up your epistemology, and never, ever, step foot near epidemiology or pathophysiology. You're very bad at handling sources of error and properly understanding limitations in the available data.

>Your argument rests on a mechanism that has not been well demonstrated
I could point to the swaying of the trees, and you would deny the existence of the wind unless it suited you. There is no value in talking to a person like this.

Goodbye. Within the next 10 years, hopefully, this snowballs or explodes somehow. And it brute forces a shift towards superior technologies, like Li-Fi. Not everyone can be honest and see the bigger picture.

I'd assume that microwaves aren't a threat because all they can do really is heat things up; they're too weak to damage genes unlike UV radiation.
So your balls might get .1 degrees warmer while you're standing in front of the microwave, so what?

No, I didn't make it up. I just said that you're more than likely the moron that was being shit on in the Veeky Forums threads, who also thought that WiFi caused cancer, and are now twisting my words in a pretty dumb way. I just came into this thread. Fuck off with your autism.

I'm leaving this thread right now btw. Don't reply with some big retort because I'm not going to read it. Let it be known, if you do post your retort, you are literally autistic.
>"Bye."
dumb fucking quack isn't wasting my time.

You both have terminal faggotry, though
has a much more advanced stage.

I'm writing you prescriptions for bleach.

I was highly skeptical and resisted this whole thing heavily at first. Tried to not get involved, couldn't find a mechanism, couldn't figure how there could be one. But I can't imagine having ever been as myopic as you, and having such moronic mindsets. I didn't at first realize, but I was never so mindnumbingly arrogant in my ignorance either.

In my case I've never liked cell phones or cared for wireless stuff anyway. So there's no emotional attachment to fight off, and no psychological overhead to deal with. My life thus far has trained me against being delusional or slave to trinkets and doodads, material lifestyle stuff, anyway. Another reason it's easy for me to not lash out irrationally, despite so clearly having the wrong answer and a level of knowledge so clearly wanting. The most unfortunate part is people don't realize their high school level (layman) understanding of physics and biology is exactly why they can't realize that they're wrong.

Bye. Have fun with dicking around on your little phone and wi-fi, you brat. I've finished making an amalgamation of raspberries, strawberries, sugar, vanilla, and chocolate. Nothing left to wait on, and I'm off.

Don't forget to put on your tin foil hat.

Luckily since I take a low level mechanistic approach to understanding and modeling the world, I can just take some L-Type VDCC blockers if I want to near completely ameliorate the impact of microwaves. It's nice to have tools that actually work.

(I'd rather walk around in a Faraday cage at that point though)

I thought you left? That you were done talking to us?
>Brush up your epistemology, and never, ever, step foot near epidemiology or pathophysiology
I have a bachelor's in public health from one of the best public health programs in the USA. :^)

>Otherwise it just induces mild to moderate dysfunction.
Dysfunction that doesn't actually impact human health in any measurable way and may not even exist.

>We quite obviously don't.
So, point to any well-designed study that demonstrates a non-negligible impact on a population scale unequivocally associated with EMR exposure.

>I thought you left? That you were done talking to us?
I started eating the amalgamation and decided not to leave.

>I have a bachelor's in public health from one of the best public health programs in the USA. :^)
So that's what's wrong with our country.

>Dysfunction that doesn't actually impact human health in any measurable way and may not even exist.
Read the studies linked. There are clear and objectively quantifiable in vivo changes, as well as studies in mice comparing cognitive and behavioral tendencies in groups exposed to microwaves with those that aren't. As well as groups tested before and after exposure.

Again. You're running your mouth without knowing anything. You're not going to "win", user. You're not going to walk out of this without in the back of your mind feeling uneasy because you know something is wrong. It's not going away, and the human species is going to have to deal with it eventually.

>So, point to any well-designed study that demonstrates a non-negligible impact on a population scale unequivocally associated with EMR exposure.
Read the studies already linked and when I'm sure we're on roughly the same page, we'll go from there.
Prerequisites for "'being on the same page":
-Acknowledgement and comprehension of chronic spikes in hsp expression, in vivo (this shit is old, old, OLD, and mainstream enough that even eg Veritasium referenced it in his (subpar) video on cell phones. You have no excuse for not being up to speed and trying to talk from 10 steps behind)
-Acknowledgement of the decades of research done on pathways associated with VDCC function, and the recent research done to rule out extracellular Ca2+ playing a role in the microwave induced influx
-Acknowledgement of the studies showing single and double strand DNA breaks, as well as the related underlying mechanics unraveled
-Acknowledgement that microwave use isn't new, and we've been at this since the 60's, and that microwaves increase BBB permeability

>You're not going to "win", user.
I'm not here to win. If you're on Veeky Forums to win an argument then you fucked up right out the gate. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong and I'm doing it because you're funny.

And I repeat: show me a study that demonstrates population-level health changes. Existence of low-level biochemical changes is at least three steps removed from that. To repurpose your metaphor: You're pointing to a windy day and trying to tell me it left chainsaw marks on a cleanly-cut stump.

The best you're going to get is mice, and heuristic guided, but nonetheless extrapolated or anecdotal, high level effects in humans. There are old studies about statistically significant spikes in cancer rates in populations living near cell towers (mainly farmers that leased or sold their land), but there's a number of confounding variables and while numerous I don't think they're worth digging up. There are also studies about human reproductive function and integrity of stem cells in bone marrow, but I've mostly focused on the CNS.

The main point here is intelligent risk assessment, especially in the case of children. I think the combination of low level mechanics observed in human cell lines, and mice in vivo / population studies, point towards a high probability of comparable effects in humans. Proper risk assessment is acknowledging and anticipating the degree of risk and controlling for it beforehand, not riding the waves and waiting for the next dip where you'll yet again have to clean up the mess from your perpetual folly.

Your position superficially seems like "it's nothing until it's DEFINITELY something". That's a problem. That's bad risk assessment, poor reasoning, and it means long term, you're going to be in the way. I want as few people in the way and cluttering the overall dialogue as possible. When you have a species that readily separates into tribes, polarizes, then becomes irrational and may only fight off the "other", you need to cripple these dynamics as quickly and thoroughly as possible. "Divide and conquer" works for a reason.

That's where I'm coming from. The stagnation and muddying of the dialogue is a major problem, and I'd like to see people collectively start moving on. Anyway, I've finished the amalgamation. I really am misusing my time, although I haven;t talked about this in a long time so it's freshened and rewired it in my head. Not complete waste, but now I'm actually gone.

hey retards, microwaves don't cause chemical changes

microwaves are less energetic than IR and visible light

an intense source of microwaves can only heat you up and, if sustained, could heat you up enough to cause decomposition of molecules. less intense sources from cel phones, wi fi and whatever leaks out of your microwave cannot harm you because they can't heat you up

now get the fuck out of Veeky Forums and go get an education before talking

Never were; never will be

Samefag

>Your position superficially seems like "it's nothing until it's DEFINITELY something"
My position is more nuanced. If this were a case of an obvious public health crisis without a clearly demonstrated mechanism, I'd totally be in favor of making large policy changes to try to mitigate it.

My opinion of all this is not "it hasn't been proven so it's nothing", but that it strikes me more as someone looking for a problem where none exists. Lots of commonly encountered things cause low-level changes to metabolism and cell function without actually impacting human health in any way that science can reliably detect. I just don't think it's worth the time or effort to make a huge public push to change how we interact with something of that class.

this thread is a fine example of what the world would be like without chemists

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962242/

Low quality studies by quacks like Martin Pall show negative affects from EMF while high quality studies find no negative effects. What a surprise...

This sounds like a line of argument that someone from the first half of the 20th century would make in regards to smoking, when they themselves enjoyed the old baccy pipe.

>My position is more nuanced.
I know this, user. But you have to realize the "nuance" you just outlined, functionally, in practice, is a 1:1 equivalent of what I said. Your internal logical framework undoubtedly has much more to it, but superficially, that's how it is, and that's what it pans out to be. "Nothing until something", at which point the damage is done, you've pushed yourself into a reactionary position, there's a lot of overhead as far as no one wanting to take the blame for the oversight, and ultimately societal as a whole is left only to mop up the results.

The current generation born 2010 onward will be the guinea pigs. Unfortunately alongside advancing research, they'll give us the answers whether people want them or not.

It's all about proper risk assessment via an informed populace, and the bigger picture. Imagine where obesity would be if people genuinely understood fructolysis, chronic stress, and common endocrine disruptors in their diet. Gone, along with overpriced garbage food, that's where it'd be. In this case when you have layman running around framing this matter as "pseudoscience", you have a problem.

Ctrl+f, no instance of calcium, voltage, VDCC or VGCC. It's also a metanalysis which affords the means to artificially skew results through biased or faulty inclusion criterion. This can lead to intentional or unintentional false perspectives.

Regardless, I'll skim through it and tell you what its problems are.

Not the guy you're replying to but I doubt much would actually change in society if people understood the science behind their obesity. People are hard-wired to seek out these high calorific foods and industrious society providing access to these poor foods, and a platform for their addiction is the problem

>It's also a metanalysis which affords the means to artificially skew results through biased or faulty inclusion criterion. This can lead to intentional or unintentional false perspectives.
Ah I see. So when you post a few studies it's an accurate assessment of the literature. But when I post a peer reviewed metastudy it's obviously biased. Really makes you think...

First problem:
>especially since there is no convincing mechanistic explanation of a biological effect. In addition, there are no consistent findings supporting any adverse effects.
We've been over this. It's alteration of voltage gradients across the cell membrane, largely via interaction with L-Type VDCCs, and via cell ruffling.

>Here we chose to analyze investigations related to cell proliferation and apoptosis
At this point you can more or less stop reading.
Translation: We're doing it again, as though we haven't done it before - high level addition.
Find out this week "DOES IT DIE?!"

>Furthermore, there are no experimental findings that can provide a mechanistic explanation for such an outcome, thus no established biological or biophysical mechanism of action exists so far.
Disingenuous, and wrong.

Anyway, this review is worthless. Their evaluation strategy obscures everything of any relevance. The incessant fixation on SAR is also indicative. This author is 15+ years behind the curve.

I agree. I don't want to go too deep into it, but yes, I also think that's the case. I don't think it's about a physiological bias towards, rather than the lack of a capacity for a bias against.

Whether it's biased or not, its design certainly makes it useless.

Alright, I'm getting too invested so I'm leaving. Since no one is willing to follow to hundreds of citations in the reviews I posted, there is decidedly no reason to continue.

In the case you change your mind and grow up a bit, here's some pubmed search terms to accelerate the discovery process. Again.
-microwave
-VDCC / VGCC
-Voltage dependent (or gated) calcium channel
-hsp70
-heat shock protein
-GSM-900/1800
-BBB / blood brain barrier
-glia
-astrocyte
-pyramidal
-ROS
-NOS

Also, look into the research done by the US navy after WW2. A lot of it is declassified now.

Bye for good, dorks. And I thought I had problems.

fuck off retard

>Be in the shower
>Close eyes to wash hair
>Sudden sensation that something is coming for my balls
>Scissors slowly aligning with my scrotum
>Open my eyes, nothing there
Your balls are never safe.

>The proper name I guess would be "chile con queso".
So you not being able to use the proper name of something makes other people ignorant?

Try warming a burrito by taping it to the microwave and setting the microwave to 2 weeks.

>Tfw Physic teacher tells class she testet it herself
>annon beleave me Wifi is dangerous i bought 2 pacages of cress and put one near my Wifi and it died faster

that dumb bitch probably has her router in the last corner of the room and the other cress on the window

ENERGIZING
MY
BALLS
A
L
L
S

the tinfoilhats the radiation fags wear acted like an Parabolic antenna and contcentrated the rays in there brain
due that the harmless radiatin burned there bains

It's from Northern Mexico. Texans can stop claiming our food.