i'm was wonderin *dot dot dot *

[kanoyume]

Ultimately, the problem is that life for most people is now so far removed from the means of production that this feeling of wasted life is inevitable.
There are precious few things actually worth doing, in the long run, and most of us don't want to do them. This creates a feeling of alienation, of an unnatural existence. It has been that way for at least some members of the population for thousands of years.
I've personally felt that way most of my life, and you learn to acknowledge, and, while not quite accepting it (one always likes to pretend one can and will change), at least live with it.
Also, Samsa is right. There is no meaning to life but what is made of it, as well as a few biological imperatives, which, if need be, can be brushed aside.

[TrumanGrace]

I have a hard time figuring how it isn't a colossal waste of time to bitch and moan about what random people are or aren't doing with their time, so the movie just screams hypocrisy to me, especially since it means they spent money to whine about it.

Originally Posted by TrunKated

Actually, no. That's a saying that is bantered about so you don't have to think or make any effort to try to be healthier. Some things are actually anti-cancer, like raw broccoli. There are a lot more.

The point of the saying is that there are many studies that have shown a large number rather common things have a chance to cause cancer, and it can be any number of things, from being outside (even a little bit) to cooking meat on the grill.

And some studies turn out to be flawed due to the proportions they give providing an unrealistic expectation or the warnings overblown. That's where the saying comes from, because studies have linked so many banal things to it.

Of course, it's pretty hard to say that things cause or prevent cancer directly (or, more accurately, a type of it), they just have a chance of affecting the probabilities that it will occur.

For cell phones, the majority of studies have shown no affect or minimal affect on it, and the World Health Organization said the same thing. Others have said they couldnt' find any, but warn that the 20 year or so time frame wasn't enough yet, so it could very well change. A few have said the effects are significant, although those same ones are criticized for other reasons and the general consensus is that it's not a major effect.

Some places have set out precautions against it even with evidence being contrary at this point. However, some of the suggestions may even be worse, which is why I'm always skeptical to see groups advocating it when they sell hands-free headsets (which may amplify any radiation). Of course, if people want to use it less because of fear of cancer, the more power to them. Maybe it would stop people from using them while operating potentially lethal machinery.

[TrunKated]

Originally Posted by TrumanGrace

I have a hard time figuring how it isn't a colossal waste of time to bitch and moan about what random people are or aren't doing with their time, so the movie just screams hypocrisy to me, especially since it means they spent money to whine about it.



The point of the saying is that there are many studies that have shown a large number rather common things have a chance to cause cancer, and it can be any number of things, from being outside (even a little bit) to cooking meat on the grill.

And some studies turn out to be flawed due to the proportions they give providing an unrealistic expectation or the warnings overblown. That's where the saying comes from, because studies have linked so many banal things to it.

Of course, it's pretty hard to say that things cause or prevent cancer directly (or, more accurately, a type of it), they just have a chance of affecting the probabilities that it will occur.

For cell phones, the majority of studies have shown no affect or minimal affect on it, and the World Health Organization said the same thing. Others have said they couldnt' find any, but warn that the 20 year or so time frame wasn't enough yet, so it could very well change. A few have said the effects are significant, although those same ones are criticized for other reasons and the general consensus is that it's not a major effect.

Some places have set out precautions against it even with evidence being contrary at this point. However, some of the suggestions may even be worse, which is why I'm always skeptical to see groups advocating it when they sell hands-free headsets (which may amplify any radiation). Of course, if people want to use it less because of fear of cancer, the more power to them. Maybe it would stop people from using them while operating potentially lethal machinery.

Hey, a buddy of mine died from brain cancer. He was a heavy cell phone user. I need it for work, but I use it very lightly and generally keep it at some distance. And there are plenty of studies indicting cell phones as dangerous.

But make up your own mind (if you have any left after all the radiation).

[thejakeman]

I just say, putting something that emits microwave radiation that close to your head is inevitably going to cause problems.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by TrunKated

Hey, a buddy of mine died from brain cancer. He was a heavy cell phone user. I need it for work, but I use it very lightly and generally keep it at some distance. And there are plenty of studies indicting cell phones as dangerous.

But make up your own mind.

My grandfather drank like a fish and ate a very poor diet and he lived well into old age, so by your logic, drinking heavily and eating poorly don't aren't bad for your health. I knew adults growing up who lived into 90's and 100's who smoked several packs of cigarettes a day, so by your logic, smoking doesn't have adverse health effects. Sorry, personal testimonials don't work when there is a body of evidence addressing a subject.

I gave what I believe to be an accurate assessment of the consensus view which is that while there are studies that have resulted in scientists saying there is an effect, the majority of the studies say otherwise. Some that have stated that there are have been criticized for various reasons. Hell, I even pointed out that scientists have said the 20 or so years some of the studies ran for may not be such an accurate measurement of long-term affects and the consensus could very well change, but you apparently stopped reading (or at least stop comprehending) at me stating that most studies showed no correlation and decided to throw out your dead friend example.

You can believe whatever you want, but at least try to read what people post before you respond. I never said that it was definitely busted, I said the consensus right now is that it's not dangerous to be using them.

I rarely use a cell phone either, most of my work is done on a land-line so I, at most, take maybe 5 calls a week on my cell phone and I only ever talk for more than 10 minutes a week on the off occasion that I have to do an interview on my cell phone (it's an awkward setup for my job, so I avoid it if I can).

[TrunKated]

Oh, no. It very much depends on the person. You have to take a holistic view. People who live long while smoking may have other habits that are healthy. Or it might be partially genetic. Or luck. Some associate lower caloric intake with long life, at least, in fruit flies. Perhaps that's all it was. Maybe he just consumed fewer calories than average. And while alcohol is a carcinogin, there are things in some drinks that are anti-cancer. Then again, I know a long term smoker/drinker who died in a fire from his drunken smoking. His lungs were actually pretty clean given his long term smoking. And yet he died from drinking and smoking nonetheless.

And consensus is often just a majority of people who are wrong. I would endeavor to say most voters were wrong in quite a few elections. I won't say which, and I bet you might agree with me in principle. Consensus does not equal the truth. (I still think Democracy is the best system though anyway btw.)

Random example of silly consensus:

This was once an effective political ad. I bet a consensus of "Citizens for Eisenhower" loved and endorsed it. And a majority of voters voted for Ike. And yet people would laugh at you if you tried such an ad today. They would laugh the politician out of the election. OR they would think it was just a bad SNL animation.


And consensus is a fleeting thing. I am only after the truth. Sure my personal examples may not effect you the way they effected me. You don't know the people personally.

Here have just one link that associates cancer with cell phone use:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ls_danger.html

Salivary gland

Last month, a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggests that cell phone use contributes to at least some cancers.

The study found focused on cancer of the salivary gland, looking at 500 Israeli citizens who had developed the disease and 1,300 healthy subjects.

Researchers concluded that those who had held a mobile handset against one side of their head for several hours a day were 50 percent more likely to have a tumor in the salivary gland."


Oh, and aspartame is slowly being viewed more and more negatively, even though they used to think it was safe.

Some say aspirin would not make it to market if it was discovered and released today, given it's danger.

So to sum up. You have to review the evidence you see yourself and make up your own mind.

[TrumanGrace]

See, that's the difference.

I do review evidence and make up my own mind, but I don't ignore any evidence that disagrees with me on the flimsy premise that the consensus is often wrong, so any studies that disagree with my view are as well. If a study shows something different, I'll take it into account when I make up my mind. But just as the consensus can be wrong, the minority is often just as wrong. Usually, the truth likes somewhere inbetween.

I also don't take statements facts and use them as an excuse to throw out unverifiable testimonials about dead friends or ridiculously irrelevant political statements.

I also know what I'm specifically talking about, so I'm not going to talk about cell phones causing more auto accidents and fatalities if we're talking about whether they cause cancer.

[TrunKated]

You seem to be making this too personal, but in any case, I'm not saying it's definitely proven. However, is it worth the risk, when you can so easily use landlines most of the time? Is it worth the risk, when, logically, a microwave transmitter should be dangerous? Do you put your head in the microwave oven? I don't

So I say I will continue to minimize their use. Not eliminate. But minimize.

You do what you want.

Remember, there was a time when margarine was supposed to be good for you. Now they realize hydrogenated oils and transfat are horrible for you. And cholesterol in food does not necessarily increase serum cholesterol. My cholesterol is fine, last I had it checked and I eat eggs 6 days a week.

In other words, we have been lied to over and over. So, sure, look to a consensus. Weigh your evidence. And do what you want. I am not trying to convince you or denegrate your point of view. I am just sharing my point of view. I could be wrong. But I have been spooked. So I am going to be careful.

[superawesome]

okays, it seems we've jumped tracks a bit, not that theres anything wrong with that but i mean lets say we are all at the amusement park and we were talking about Breast Expansion and out of no where someone says "MY FOOT FELL ASLEEP!" a little random/subject changing material eh?

[TrumanGrace]

I think the same thing, but it's had the opposite effect on me. There was also a time when power lines were feared to cause cancer. I could use the same example, when butter was bad for you and all these companies began to shill for Olea to prey on the fears. We had people spreading fear over Y2K, making people panic and buy in bulk to try to live out Armageddon. Again we see it in the Peak Oil scare.

We've had people saying we should be afraid of everything at all times, half of which were accompanied by some special products or specials that were supposed to mitigate the fears (with 4 easy payments of $29.99!). We're supposed to be afraid of everything and half the time the fears are unfounded. Now we have the same thing, accompanied by the same array of products that are supposed to block it. After looking at the evidence, I'm skeptical. People have been preying on fears for as long someone figured they could get profit from riling people up. If it's not profit, it's chicken little overreacting to an acorn.

I'm not saying there's no chance of it, but all the studies that show it have shown it for people who have their heads glued to their cell-phones all day, and the studies that take into account all users and not just the upper extremes have shown little effect. Well, anything in excess will can cause negative harm to you. But there's a difference between popping a slice of pizza in a microwave and duct taping yourself to a microwave dish for 12 hours a day.

We have been lied to over and over, but by people who want us to be afraid of everything. So often the fears they spread are unfounded or flawed. Well, when Chicken Little keeps yelling that the sky is falling, people soon realize that's it's probably a ploy.

[TrunKated]

Hey some fears are justified and some aren't. You make up your own mind what to fear. Or fear nothing. Whatever works for you. And I'm even not sure the high power line issue has been settled. I think there is actually still a controversy about EMF radiation and health.

I think you would prefer to go with the flow and use cell phones with abandon. Which is fine. But it brings me back to the saying, "Don't you know everything can give you cancer in this day of age?" No, not everything. Some things MAY be risky. Some things are SUPPOSEDLY anti-cancer. I will go with the best understanding I have at the moment.

[TrumanGrace]

Some fears are justified, most of what is thrown at us to fear hasn't been. A lot of what isn't justified is pushed by people who have something to gain by us fearing something.

Like I said before, I barely use them as is, and the fact that most studies show little effect only makes me further believe I have nothing to fear by my sparse use. If you want to worry about occasionally using something that's going to hit you with less radiation than a microwave oven, be my guest. You seem to be the type of person whose going to buy into any "X causes cancer" statement regardless of what information comes out after the fact.

Also, seriously, I laugh every time you say something is "Anti-cancer." I don't know, I just find that to be a funny term for some reason. Things can raise or lower the risk of getting it, but the only thing I could consider anti-cancer would be things that directly fight it, like radiation therapy or chemotherapy.