I think tommo got the basic message, even if he didn't know that the 5% thing is artificial.
Printable View
I think tommo got the basic message, even if he didn't know that the 5% thing is artificial.
When I heard the cell phone thing, I thought of this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...inColumnArea.0
I love this guy.
Yeah, probably that. I just read about it in a critique of a precognition study a couple of days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
So I got a slightly wrong idea of it from that, but basically I get it.
The problem isn't the studies or the scientists, it's the media who report on every little fucking preliminary study which comes out. All it does is confuse people. They don't care because they just want shocking stories and commotion and fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1701
No, the healthy way to smoke is to smoke on occasion. I think it was kinda obvious that since I said he was unhealthy he didn't smoke in a healthy manner. If you smoke 1 cigarette every year and you are otherwise healthy(eat right, excercise) it's very unlikely you will get cancer or have other resperitory problems unless you live in New York.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Other healthy smoking tips: Use a pipe. Or smoke American spirits or some other kind of additive free tobacco.
Do you never eat junk food? It's the same thing, all things in moderation.
Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying instead of thinking of reasons why they are wrong.
And I already am a teacher by the way, music.
Right, if you barely ever smoke at all, like once a year, then you're unlikely to get cancer from it. What a revelation.
If this was your point then you were just making a terrible analogy. You think people should use mobile phones once a year? If you 'smoke in moderation' at anything like the rate you could be said to eat in moderation or use a mobile phone in moderation, you have a good chance of getting lung cancer. I don't get your message.
No, if you look back to my first post I said.
I wasn't even making an analogy. I was just pointing out that 99% of people do many things that can cause(and or increase your risk of) cancer and they don't get cancer(well the vast majority don't). So there's no reason to worry about cellphones if we don't even know that they can cause cancer since you probably do other things that do cause cancer. I just included my grandpa because he was an extreme example. He smoked so much that it doesn't even make sense he didn't get cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
I'm not trying to make some kind of profound statement, just talking about cancer and health.
My point was that even if it is known that something can cause cancer it's not a reason to be afraid of it, you should just act rationally about it and not use it to excess. This article, like some people have already said, is a bit irresponsible because we don't know that this is actually dangerous and since it "possibly" is people are going to freak out about it. The same way everyone has been freaking out about cigarettes basically trying to make them go away for the past 10-20 years because they cause cancer(though clearly the reaction won't be as bad as with cigarettes, I doubt there will be any lobbyist groups trying to ban cell phones because of this). My point is that people should chill the fuck out and stop reacting to scare tactics and trying to create this sterile world were everything is clean.
It's amazing how our perception works. You've decided that what I'm saying is "wrong" back in my first post and ever since then all you can see are reasons as to why that is(this is a form of dogmatic thinking Xei, I'm disapointed). Do you not understand the concept of "in moderation?" It doesn't mean you do something only once a year, it means you do it in a manner that doesn't cause excessive stress on the body, like drinking in moderation. It doesn't mean you only drink once a year, it means you don't get hammered every night.
Thinking somebody is consistently being wrong is only dogmatic if they don't consistently appear to be wrong. In my opinion you haven't been very clear throughout. You were basically saying that we shouldn't worry about doubtful carcinogens when there are people who are very exposed to certain carcinogens yet don't get cancer; so the tacit statement behind the argument here is basically that carcinogens like tobacco aren't that serious anyway, and so things like mobile phones definitely aren't; if that's not the case then I still don't know what the argument was. But tobacco really is a potent killer, and there isn't really a safe way to smoke; not one that doesn't involve smoking so infrequently that you can't call yourself a smoker anyway. That was my problem.
You would be correct, the healthy way to smoke is on occasion. A smoker is someone who is addicted, someone who smokes frequently, vs in moderation.
I never said anything definitively, I'm not saying I know for certain that cellphones don't cause cancer, I'm no expert. What I'm saying is that there are so many other ways to lower your chances of getting cancer than changing your cell phone use. Like smoking in moderation rather than daily. I may have implied that cellphones are less of a risk than cigarettes, but I never said that I know that cellphones aren't dangerous, just that I see no reason why they would be so it's stupid to assume that they do and change your behaviour accordingly just because WHO put out some vague article that has no data in it. You have my argument correct, it's the first thing you said, but I didn't mean to imply what you said.
Would you disagree, should we be worried about cellphones when there are other things that we are exposed to that do cause cancer? Shouldn't we reason from what we know and act based on that rather than just being paranoid and guessing?
I also never said that carcinogens aren't serious, but that being exposed to carcinogens does not mean that you will get cancer(and therefore there's no need to freak out and react to this article from WHO that basically says nothing). From what I understand, other factors like overall health and genetics have far more of an influence.
Shit's legit. Trust me.
No.
I agree 100% with everything stonedape said.
Seriously guys, who the f**k cares about cell phones and carcinogenics.....the air is polluted, you could get hit by a car at any moment just by walking across the street, get in a car accident at any moment, you can be robbed and killed just for buying something at the store or putting groceries in your car in the parking lot. There's no way in hell you can walk around in this world 100% risk-free. So why worry about it. Trust me, there are A LOT of things in this society that are harmful to your health, mentally and physically. Cell phone cancer should be the least of your worries, if you are the type that worries about things like this.
People want to minimize risks. If cell phones cause cancer (they pretty much don't), people would worry since they use them all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majestic
Yeah LOL! Tomorrow ima drive to work with my eyes closed!! Might as well have some fun, you can never have 0% risk anyway! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Majestic