| Author |
Electro-magnetic wave- Brain Problem |
Leviath
Joined: Sep 14, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: PT@IB_PENINSULA LIVIN IN UK
PM |
@max_wedge
I think your talking about curruption and greed... Just a stab in the dark.... Or in someones back....
[addsig] | |
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
with a bunch of mad people running the senate, then of course greed and corruption would be rampant!
But seriously, analysis of ancient roman remains shows an unhealthy amount of lead and other signs of disease caused be lead poisoning...
Imagine if all the young dudes around now using mobile phones, many who will be tomorrow's leaders, all getting brain cancers after twenty years....we'll be leaderless, society will fall apart.
I will be living in the mountains by then...
|
Kryptik
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Port Elizabeth, S.Africa
PM |
I'm already shi**ing myself at the alarming death toll re- HIV/AIDS, really don't need mad dudes running our countries.... Hey, hold on, we've already got crazies in control :-)
This message was posted from a Nokia |
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
Imagine that, the more we talk about the bad effects of electromagnetic waves, the wierder our discussion has become.  
resistance is futile. |
blayv
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Srbija
PM |
Quote:
|
But in truth, if low power microwave energy was harmful, people who work in kitchens where microwaves are used day in and day out, would be dropping with cancer left right and centre.
|
|
you know, one does not get a cancer from smoking in year or two, but 10-40 years.
how much are micro-waves, or even better mobile phones in use?
i'm not trying to say MOBILE CAUSES CANCER, but everyone who claims IT DOESN'T, just after 10 years or so of researching is not to be believed, because there hasn't passed enough time to give conclusions.
it's as if they said 'sprinter runs 10m/s, so he would finish marathon in 65 mins, so if he ran a marathon he would win by far'.
[ This Message was edited by: blayv on 2005-10-07 16:35 ] |
Leviath
Joined: Sep 14, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: PT@IB_PENINSULA LIVIN IN UK
PM |
Forum discussions act as a catalist for the increasing radioactive nucleotites released by the vibration of the keyboard tapping...
This Harmonic resonance of simpathetic freequencies cause mal effects on our cerebrelum in the region of the alpha wave padron..
In sum We all know deep inside we are all barmy and dont care less about discussing such futile topics and feel an urge to ridicule the ridiculous...
Funny I blame that on spare time...
@blayv
Be serious man...
Quote:
| you know, one does not get a cancer from smoking in year or two, but 10-40 years. |
|
I know of people that have died of Lung cancer or otherwise smoking related diseases and never even came close to smoking...
I would have to comclude unofensibly that your data is not just inconclusive but not even based on a simple research or experience...
Please this topic as no need for further fueling on matters you clearly have no knowledge about....
Much like myself... This is why I know I talk sh1te not to seem that I hae no idea of what I am on about...
_________________
For a while as a child I believed everything, now I grown up I am a sceptic about everything I believe.
want a GMAIL invite? CLICK HERE & PM me w/ your e-mail
[ This Message was edited by: Leviath on 2005-10-07 16:51 ] |
blayv
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Srbija
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-07 17:41:44, Leviath wrote:
@blayv
Be serious man...
I know of people that have died of Lung cancer or otherwise smoking related diseases and never even came close to smoking...
I would have to comclude unofensibly that your data is not just inconclusive but not even based on a simple research or experience...
|
|
please don't invert my words.
cancer (not just lung, but mouth, throat and other), asthma, chronic bronchitis are diseases RELATED TO, not EXCLUSIVELY CAUSED by smoking.
so of course there are non-smokers that died, just as there are smokers that are alive. but smoker has 10 times more chances than non-smoker to get ill (distribution is 90 to 10).
that's the information i got during my studies, not in daily newspaper, believe me, i am by coincidence well-endowed with info on this matter. so please don't tell me that my data is not based on research or experience...
some greek philosopher b.c. (i can't recall what) proven that turtle is faster then achilles in this manner. i think that is called sophism.
so if you really feel like what you're saying, then go and smoke 30 or more cigarettes daily, beacuse you wan't have to worry about the consequences, right?
[ This Message was edited by: blayv on 2005-10-07 17:44 ] |
Leviath
Joined: Sep 14, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: PT@IB_PENINSULA LIVIN IN UK
PM |
[quote]
On 2005-10-07 18:20:03, blayv wrote:
[quote]
On 2005-10-07 17:41:44, Leviath wrote:
@blayv
Be serious man...
I know of people that have died of Lung cancer or otherwise smoking related diseases and never even came close to smoking...
Quote:
| On 2005-10-07 18:20:03, blayv wrote:
please don't invert my words.
cancer (not just lung, but mouth, throat and other), asthma, chronic bronchitis are diseases RELATED TO, not EXCLUSIVELY CAUSED by smoking.
[ This Message was edited by: blayv on 2005-10-07 17:44 ]
|
|
@blayv
I am am sure you can believe what you will and feel that your well endowed with many things....
But do not presume or insist or try to even insinuate in any manner, that in some bizarre way I am attempting to invert your words... (I believe You mean twist your words)
If you read my paragraph and then yours you will see that in a tenue and unsimilar way what I in between the lines meant by Quote:
| otherwise smoking related diseases |
|
are in essence causes of death related/unrelated to smoking... (which incidentally you mildly elaborate on you reply)
In you eloquent reply (a little more composed but somewhat sketchy) invoking a modern derogatory usage of the word, suggesting an invalid argument composed of specious reasoning, seems to indicate a failed attempt to prove a difficult to formulate and complete view of the Sophists' beliefs....
So after the academic toss up, tell me.... whats that got to do with the price of fish???
_________________
For a while as a child I believed everything, now I grown up I am a sceptic about everything I believe.
want a GMAIL invite? CLICK HERE & PM me w/ your e-mail
[ This Message was edited by: Leviath on 2005-10-07 23:01 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
We probably get worse EMR exposure by sitting in front of our computer monitors posting on esato
Despite everything I said, I do take some precautions for example, I try not to talk for more than half and hour to an hour on the mobile at any one time (or for consecutive calls). But I don't worry too much on the odd occasion that I do talk for this long.
I also keep my phone on the desk rather than on my belt while working (or posting on esato).
If I get cancer, then we'll all get cancer and non-mobile phone users (the poor and disenfranchised) will inherit the earth. Good luck to them I say they deserve it if we screw it up
|
blayv
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Srbija
PM |
my final reply on that will be that,
when i want to prove my point, i try doing it by bringing out facts;
not by insulting others and bringing them down
(whether in perfid or rude way), to prove my words.
that imo has nothing to do with word academic.
Quote:
|
@blayv
I am am sure you can believe what you will and feel that your well endowed with many things....
academic-toss...
|
|
...and more. take in consideration i can't write that well in english, so of course someone can find gramatical errors in my text, or say some construction can sound illogically. and it's not fair to catch some stupid glitch in my sentence, because i don't use english that much, unlike you.
also, of course, i you may be more skilfull with words (in english, at least) but taking something out of context and using it to drive discussion in way you like, doesn't necessary mean you're right.
i'm sorry if my first post on this wasn't clear;
it's point was that 10 year period is not enough to prove some factor is not cancerogene.
not that smoking causes cancer within 10-40 years; which you tried to deny. that's ok, because that's not correct conclusion anyway, but problem is, that's not my conclusion too, it's your conclusion about my words.
i cannot talk much about the sophists, so i don't.
i claim something when i'm positive, and you can see the words "i think" not "i know".
all i think i know, that they were devoted to form, not meaning, so if they can beat you in word game, true meaning is left aside.
concerning above topic i'm not a lawyer, so maybe i don't sound persuasive like you but i'm medical worker, and that gave me humble feeling that i'm competent, and i can feel "well-endowed".
if my bad english (for which i am sorry) pokes your eyes so much, we can always continue debate in my mother-language, but through pm, please.
anyway when i posted, i haven't had in my mind that i'll have to argue over meaning of my sentences, because they have been questioned because of form, not meaning. if i get those replies for every my post, i'll stop posting, because i don't like like discussions, and i can't sit silent.
[ This Message was edited by: blayv on 2005-10-08 15:27 ]
[ This Message was edited by: blayv on 2005-10-08 15:30 ] |
samreen
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Posts: 59
PM |
It's absolutely right that smoking does predispose to bronchogenic carcinoma & the risk increases with the # of cigarettes smoked per day & for how long but it's also true that this is a hit & run mechanism. There's an example that a guy who worked with his chain smoker boss in a small, not well-ventilated office died of bronchogenic carcinoma which is purely related to smoking though he never smoked but was a passive smoker as his boss used to smoke alot, surprisingly his boss is still alive & kicking.
True love is a rare find so don't let it go once you get it by luck. |
blayv
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Srbija
PM |
some studies say passive smoking is more harmful then active- because you don't have a filter, you breathe the smoke directly, and your lungs are not habited to smoke. i must run away immediately, because i see masseur coming up with a sniper rifle...
This message was posted from a T610 |
Leviath
Joined: Sep 14, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: PT@IB_PENINSULA LIVIN IN UK
PM |
@blavy
Wilst it was a interesting discussion it was not meant to bring to the table that sad feeling of being put down...
If you have taken in any way offense please forgive my occasional verbal discharge...
It was becoming a little inflated but I regarded it as a constructive and educational discussion if anything...
Like you my mother language is not English, but I had to accept little correction from my friends and others in order to improve, If I ever took offense of that, I would have learned nothing... So It doesnt poke me in the eyes, rather accept it as it was meant...
Now that PM...
[addsig] |
BlueQuill
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
Posts: 419
From: India
PM |
A lot of research is going on the effects mobile phone radiaition can have on the human body. Scientists have found more evidence of definite effects of mobile phone radiation on human health.
In June 1998 it was reported that radiation from mobile phones causes an increase of blood pressure. Scientists in Germany attached mobile phones to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from a constrictive effect on blood vessels. This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body.
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Yes, I agree completely. It is absolutely certain that mobile phone use has physiological affects on the body.
I think the important question health researchers haven't answered is how much exposure is needed before the body ceases to be able to repair itself or withstand the exposure without harm.
Just like sun exposure causes skin cancer, it doesn't mean you have to avoid the sun completely! | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2005-10-07 15:51
