It's caused by many things, usually exposure to UV sunlight or artificial UV light. UV light, even in the non-ionizing spectrum, can cause free radicals to induce cellular damage, which can be carcinogenic .
You know what it's not caused by? Cell phones. I could not find a single study that had a conclusive case of skin cancer linked to cell phone usage. Cell phones have the same carcinogenetic rating as coffee, as in, it could cause cancer, we've just never seen any evidence it actually does.
Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from radiation therapy, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).
The only known biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating; however, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. ... Although there have been some concerns that radiofrequency energy from cell phones held closely to the head may affect the brain and other tissues, to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.
It is generally accepted that damage to DNA is necessary for cancer to develop. However, radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage in cells, and it has not been found to cause cancer in animals or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens in animals (3–5).
Whatever. I can get "damage or effects" from eating spicy foods (usually in my bowels). If there were thousands of experiments showing that "damage" was occurring at levels less than a standard mobile phone I find it interesting that a medical journal and the government website for cancer research would both claim there's no evidence that cell phone radiation can cause cancer. After all, that's a pretty significant claim; if there really were thousands or even hundreds of contrary claims, I wonder why they chose the word "no" rather than "little." In fact, the entire page repeatedly states there is no known link between cell phones and cancer.
...and read the very portion that you quoted. The second part, specifically.
"While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
Now, read that again. The first part, that whoever has interpreted certain reports to suggest a link (I refuse to register to read what should be a public document) between wireless device use and cancer is completely irrelevant when placed into context of the second sentence. It flat out says that there is no scientific evidence linking wireless device use to cancer or other illness. I see the phrase "other illness" and place it next to the beginning of the sentence, which says "no scientific evidence."
Shit, I'm glad Im [sic] not as embarresed [sic] as you at this point.
It's not OK by my standards, it's OK by the standards of the consensus of the entire scientific field on the subject. A tiny percentage of research that disagrees with the overall consensus does not make the majority wrong.
You're acting exactly like the anti-global warming crowd.
"Well, there's no evidence global warming is really happening." "Here's a ton of research showing quite clearly the planet is heating up." "Well, there's no evidence humans are causing it." "Here's a ton of research showing that it's progressing faster than ever before, that human activity would scientifically create the effects we're seeing, and that, given the age of the planet, we should be seeing a less drastic increase, it's extremely likely humans are significantly accelerating the process." "Well, there are these three guys that disagree." "And here are ninety-seven that say those guys are wrong."
The worst part is that once you actually have to show your evidence rather than smug "Hey look, an ignorant person" comments everything disagrees with your premise. You're totally reaching for even the tiniest thing that might indicate you're right, like pointing out that there isn't a "zero" chance of cancer or that there could be "other illness." You even point out what happens when someone is living within an inch of a cell phone tower like this is actually something that happens.
The problem is you're essentially quoting the obligatory "we think this is safe, but just to defend us from lawyers, we're going to say it might hurt you" comments tacked on to virtually everything. You've sat here arguing with people saying "cell phones aren't dangerous" and quoted a bunch of scientists saying "cell phones aren't dangerous, as far as we can tell" and interpreting that to mean cell phones are very dangerous and scientists just haven't figured it out...yet.
This is dumb, and you're upset that I pointed it out. It's OK, that's part of the learning process; sometimes you have to admit you're wrong and move on. Good luck!
P.S. When you start off by complaining that someone doesn't have a "good retort" and "worthless talk" it's probably better not to follow it up by pure ad hom. Sure, I used plenty of ad hom too...but I backed it up with facts. I didn't even have to bother with research, either, because you proved yourself wrong without my help. It'll only hurt for a little bit!
Apology? Did you actually read what you linked? Because if you had you'd have read that it's a Group 2B carcinogen, in other words, possibly carcinogenetic. It's in the same category as gasoline (in general, including fumes), Citrus Red 2 (FDA approved food dye), pickled vegetables, and coffee.
All common, everyday objects that cause panic in absolutely no one. You are much more likely to be killed by a gasoline fire than gasoline caused cancer.
Continuing on, reading the first paragraph under "effects", states the following (emphasis mine):
A 2007 assessment published by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) concludes that the three lines of evidence, viz. animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies, indicate that "exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans".
In fact, most of the rest of the page is filled with studies that didn't link cell phones and cancer.
Holy crap, if you're going to quote Wikipedia, at least make sure the page agrees with you first.
Did you know that, any time there's a thunderstorm outside, you could be struck by lightning and killed? Where are all the "CAUTION: LIGHTNING HAZARD" signs outside? Also, did you know your car is filled with gasoline, which could explode due to static electricity? Your dashboard is suspiciously missing the "MAY EXPLODE ANY SECOND" sign. As a matter of fact, just to be safe, we should tattoo "CAUTION: MAY CAUSE DEATH FROM CRANIAL BLOOD PRESSURE" around your skull because you just never know when you'll drop dead from an aneurysm.
The mere fact that something is potentially harmful does not rate a warning or even fear. A one of friend's husband has permanent brain damage because he tripped on a sidewalk and managed to hit his head just wrong. He was sober, fully rested, and healthy...he just had bad luck and a momentary lapse.
You've been going through this thread talking about "potential harm" in something that has virtually no evidence or logical basis. You're clearly trying to rationalize your irrational phobia (are you Stephen King, by any chance?). You probably believe that cell phones are an explosive hazard at gas stations and can bring down airplanes too. Sure, it's possible. It's possible a sudden solar event will create enough heat in our atmosphere to destroy all life on earth, too, but I don't see too many people freaking out about it.
By all means, we should keep researching it. Who knows? Maybe there's something involved that does make them risky (which can probably be fixed...they didn't ban gasoline when they found out adding lead was a bad idea, they fixed the problem). But wild speculation based on "hints" that non-ionizing radiation at extremely low wattage is going to start mass killing people only makes you look like a hysterical conspiracy theorist.
And if you're actually saying there's a only tiny risk, well, duh, there's a tiny risk to literally everything. That doesn't mean we need a warning label and for people to start treating cell phones like they're made of plutonium. The sun is full of dangerous, unpredictable radiation that it spews at us on a daily basis yet life goes on. There's a difference between "reasonable precaution" and "ridiculous overreaction."
You might want to consider shifting back a bit towards the former, because right now you're practically tipping over the latter.
Copyright should never, ever, in a million billion years, be permitted to cover meetings. If the purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works, and the work in question is meetings, we need to put a stop to this immediately before all human productivity grinds to an absolute halt.
You know...you know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
How is this in any way a moral issue? Do people even know what "morals" are anymore? Since when is "doing something I don't want you to do for my own selfish reasons" a moral violation?
Here's a fundamental flaw in copyright discussions. You can't discuss morals without discussing intent. Intent is core to moral action. We all instinctively know this. That's why burning a house down intentionally is considered arson and doing it accidentally is, at most, negligence, with significantly different potential punishments.
The problem is that we've forgotten about intent. I'm not talking about intent to "steal" movies via copyright infringement. I'm talking about the intent of copyright in the first place. Why does copyright exist at all?
First of all, it's not a "natural right." There is no natural right to own what you create, in fact the entire concept of property implies the opposite. If I create a chair, then sell you the chair, I no longer own that chair. It's yours, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Likewise, if I tell a joke, and you tell your friends that joke too, no natural right has been violated, even if I thought up the joke. Ideas are inherently meant to be shared; this is also known as "education" or "communication." The whole purpose of communication is transferring ideas to other people, otherwise it would have no function.
That's what gets me about the copyright discussion. We've created laws around copyright protections...that's not really up for debate. But what is the point of those laws?
Think of other laws. We have laws against corporate fraud. Why? To protect the public from abuse. We have laws against jaywalking. Why? To prevent people from getting hit by cars. There's a purpose and intent behind laws, even if sometimes that purpose is to make people richer or if the law doesn't actually accomplish its purpose.
So what's the purpose of copyright? It depends on your country, of course, but in the U.S. we have it in pretty plain language; "to promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts..."
So if the morals behind a law are in the intent, not the effect, how is copyright infringement immoral? Illegal, sure, but immoral? Are pirates really causing less art to be created? If you believe they are, and many people do, can you prove it?
I ask this because all the evidence I see is the opposite. Creators create even without monetary incentive and plenty of "copyright" industries exist with little to no copyright protections. In fact, the main beneficiaries I see from copyright are distributers/publishers, who don't create anything, and lawyers, who don't create anything. What exactly are artists gaining?
So if the intent of copyright is to encourage the creation of intellectual works, and copyright law is at best not affecting the creation of intellectual works, and at worst actively harming those efforts, what moral imperative is there to follow copyright law? If someone made a law that I need to tip my hat to a statue of Walt Disney, and I refuse to do so, have I committed a moral crime, or just broken a stupid rule?
There's nothing immoral about using a VPN to access information, or to pirate, or any other copying. It's illegal, sure, but I have absolutely no moral imperative to obey your imaginary rights to my copy of something you created. It doesn't make sense in practice, similar to how, after looking for traffic on an empty street, most people will cross the street outside of a crosswalk. Have they broken the law? Sure. Have they done something morally wrong? Only the most bizarre rule-mongers or fanatics would say so.
That's what I see when people go on and on about piracy and VPNs. A bunch of adults complaining about jaywalkers and calling it trespassing on government property and reckless endangerment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.
That will never work again in the US.
Duh. The American Civil War proved that rather decisively. The U.S. has a culture of self defense, much like the Japanese have a culture that reveres the Samurai. I doubt many guys with swords are going to rule in Japan any time soon. Just because something is useless or outdated doesn't mean it doesn't have an important cultural purpose (*cough* like religion *cough*).
Apart from the fact that this is still (justified?) murder...
There's no such thing as "justified murder." Murder is unjustified or illegal homicide by definition. Killing in self-defense is both legal and justified, and therefore never murder. Which brings me to my next point...
So is a taser or pepper spray. Martial arts training is also a great equalizer, with awesome health benefits.
Bullshit. Tasers are typically single shot and have barely any penetrating power. While they will penetrate most standard clothing, a glancing blow means you now have a stun gun, and if a woman is having to fight in close quarters she's already most likely lost. Pepper spray is likewise short-ranged and can easily backfire. It can also be shrugged off depending on the sensitivity and strength of the target.
And martial arts are a great confidence builder and workout, but do little for actual self-defense. The 5'2" female roundhouse-kicking the big dude unconscious only happens in the movies. In reality a big guy has reach, muscles, adrenaline, and raw strength far above the average female. There has to be a significant difference in training between the male and female to close the natural gap. In real life situations it's nearly impossible for the average woman to fight off a determined male attacker without a weapon.
That being said, nonlethal weapons do have advantages, but the main one is the fact that it's nonlethal, not anything inherent to the weapon itself. Someone is much less likely to hesitate when using a nonlethal weapon than a lethal one, and in a close quarters situation hesitation can be death (especially if the attacker gains control of the gun).
You are extremely unlikely to accidentally kill the wrong target with nonlethal weapons as well, which is a bonus. I personally prefer them for home defense for precisely that reason, but I'm also a man living on a military base, so I'm not in a situation where I'm particularly worried about being attacked in my home. If I were a single woman living in a high crime area, however, that gun could save my life.
I had a problem, so I got a gun. Now I got two problems.
And there is your problem. You already assume guns are a problem, when in fact they are simply a tool. They're a tool designed to fire projectiles and hit a target. There are plenty of "destructive" tools with productive uses; saws, drills, sandpaper, knives...guns shoot things. They can be used productively, for defense, hunting, or fun, and they can be used for harm, such as murder or suicide.
When someone misuses a tool, it's never the fault of the tool, it's the fault of the person using it. Blaming the tool is simply scapegoating, because most people don't like admitting that maybe, just maybe, the problem is them. Maybe you don't like them. That's fine, don't get one. But your hang-ups are not my problem.
Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.
Do hunters in NZ use bows and arrows? Spears maybe? Throwing knives? Or maybe you're more "humane" and just pen up everything and kill it via slaughterhouses?
Last I checked NZ wasn't a vegetarian nation. So before you get on your high horse about how guns are a tool that's only designed to kill people you might want to stop forgetting about the major other purpose behind guns.
Also, if you honestly believe you could live freely in your nation without a military force or allies with military force you are hopelessly naïve. The U.S. is a country founded on the basis of people fighting against an oppressive government (ironic, I know). Being able to defend oneself is a core element of U.S. culture, and was considered important enough by our founders to place directly below the right to speak freely.
Guns have many more purposes besides murder. They can be used to protect you from others who would do you harm. A gun is a great equalizer between the sexes; a woman can defend herself with a gun as effectively as a man, unlike most other weapons. They can be used to teach responsibility and safety. They can be used for recreation and mastery, which in turn can build confidence.
Just because you don't understand them or want them doesn't mean they have no purpose beyond what your extremely limited view believes.
There's a lot of military technology that has since become useful civilian tech, like space travel, satellites, jet engines, radios, radar, duct tape, digital cameras, and the internet. Does the fact they were designed for military use diminish their usefulness in the civilian world? I don't think so.
That's consistent with my view of him as neo-con / neo-liberal technocrat modernist who's eager for the "internet of things" and full-time surveillance of pesky humans.
Yup, Mike Masnick, the pro-surveillance guy. That's totally the vibe I get from reading this site. Did your mother forget to rinse the soap off her hands often? Because I think you may have been dropped on the noggin one too many times.
Clearly you buy into the "business good, government bad" fantasy land. Black-and-white only exists in the real world for children and fanatics, both of which have impaired mental faculties and only one of which has a legitimate excuse. Assuming you aren't a child, grow up and learn to think for yourself.
1. Why would you consider a pressure cooker a bomb by design? Aren't they designed to cook food?
2. If you were going to blow up people with a pressure cooker (or anything else) why would you leave your bomb in plain view?
3. Why not blow up the car instead, which happens to be filled with gasoline?
Just curious. Having gone through numerous classes on IED (improvised explosive device) identification I do not recall "cooking device in plain view" as an indicator. Recently dug holes, dead animals with wires coming out of them, a single pothole that is filled in around other potholes with discoloration in the road nearby...there are plenty of IED indicators out there, admittedly applying to a combat zone where IEDs are relatively common.
But a cooker sitting in the back of someone's car? I must have missed that class. Where did you get that training? My guess is from your own fantasy world near your anti-zombie preparations.