Planning a smoking area?

Gahn · Post by **Gahn** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:23 am

Lieva wrote:thats true..but only because passive mobiling drives people so bonkers they commit homicide

Nah it's passive cause whilest u are crossing the street random moron number 1450, who's ofc without any sort of bluetooth headset or whatever, isn't paying attention while cybering via phone with his gf and he runs ya down

Compton · Post by **Compton** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:09 am

Takitothemacs wrote:but it gets worse... what about those that use mobile phones?

People using mobile phones are getting tumors in their heads because of the mobile phone emitting microwave radiation... others around them are being subjected to passive mobile phone use possibly causing them to develop tumors too.... now personally I dont make any calls but I am subjected to passive mobiling every day on the streets of london, in pubs/clubs and even worse on public transport... yes when confined inside a metal box with nowhere for the microwave radiation to escape I am being bombarded with tumor causing radiation making it more probable that I will develop brain tumors as a result of passive mobiling. Surely there should be a law that prohibits people from mobiling in public places or anywhere that the radiation might possibly could with a reasonable prevailing breeze affect some others based on the fact there is a remote possiblity that has not been conclusively proven to actually cause tumors... in short ban mobile phones (especially those ones that kids have that play their music loud on busses/trains with the audio quality of a 20 year old am radio) I tell you mobile phones are killing people... and passive mobiling is contributing to the deaths of people, the NHS will be inundated with an increased number of cases of tumors caused by passive mobiling in 20-30 years time... you will all see im right about this when you have forgotten I exist and they finally prove that passive mobiling is responsible for the debt in the health services and the increased numbers of people dying from mobile related illness.

now give me my place at the top of the cool list!

In short: what is cancer? a mutation from a normal cell wich has an out of control growth rate. How does this occur? By ionisations of DNA strands so there are changes in the DNA structure and possibly the reproduction part. Thus a cell starts to reproduce and generates a tumour. Afterwards these cells spread out and start metasteses, body functions fail and you die.

microwave radiation is non-ionising radiation... and the only people that are generating this kind of "great cellphone disaster" are people who 1) have made a "magical machine" that changes negative body radiation to "positive" body radiation 2) have a quite flawed scientific background.

I've read a bit about it, discussed about it, and from my background I can assure you it's far from a problem for cancer. However what it could possibly perhaps, once in a full moon, generate, is heating in the brain. This could perhaps lead to some small consequences in other areas like permeability or so... but to be honest, all these conjected theories i've read are just bollocks, spewed out by some non-scientific people.

media != right

I repeat, microwave radiation is non-ionising...

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:15 am

was discussing the micro waves with Xest last night. Altho i believe they will end up to be a health risk, its still to early to know that yet. In 20-30 years mobile users will be the ones ppl will pick on and then the smokers will be long stuffed in a small room with no chance of fresh air anymore

Takitothemacs · Post by **Takitothemacs** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:19 am

hehe true... my point though was to overlay the smoking debate with another example of how an issue could be interpreted in the same way... tumors was the wrong term for the issue that mobiles could/might/do cause damage to others around them as well as the individual who happens to be getting any potential damage first hand.

I deliberately didnt go into the technicalities of it as a) I dont know and b) I smoke occasionally and use my mobile phone so Im a bit fooked either way. Just trying to get people to look at the discussion from both sides.

Takitothemacs · Post by **Takitothemacs** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:23 am

[quote="Satyn"]was discussing the micro waves with Xest last night. Altho i believe they will end up to be a health risk, its still to early to know that yet. In 20-30 years mobile users will be the ones ppl will pick on and then the smokers will be long stuffed in a small room with no chance of fresh air anymore ]
precisely... we don't know at this point with 100% certainty if mobiles/microwaves cause damage... same way as asbestos was used throughout the building trade years ago... now we find that it kills people... go figure... hindsight is a wonderful thing... its possible even that we may find in the future that smoking would be harmless if it wasnt for the fact that tobacco is wrapped in that thin paper and its the paper that is the problem... (Its a theory of completely ridiculuous proportions before anyone jumps down my throat on that matter)

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:23 am

already brought up the mobile phones half way the discussion

so i have no other choice than to actually agree with you taki ... damn!

Takitothemacs · Post by **Takitothemacs** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:27 am

Satyn wrote:already brought up the mobile phones half way the discussion so i have no other choice than to actually agree with you taki ... damn!

you will get over it

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:29 am

[quote="Takitothemacs"]you will get over it ]

yeah but traumatised for life

Post by **Lieva** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:33 pm

Takitothemacs wrote:possible even that we may find in the future that smoking would be harmless if it wasnt for the fact that tobacco is wrapped in that thin paper and its the paper that is the problem... (Its a theory of completely ridiculuous proportions before anyone jumps down my throat on that matter)

its possible..
the trees are getting their own back

Gandelf · Post by **Gandelf** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:03 pm

Sharkith wrote:Do you know what your basic risk is and what else is increasing that basic risk Gandy?

Do you eat butter or flora?

If your basic risk is 1 in a million then increasing it to 1.25 in a million is not a big increase is it?

Whatever the basic risk is, is irrelevant. The fact that something affects you to increase that risk, is. It doesn't matter how small the percentage is, if passive smoking does increase the risk, then that's significant enough for me. In other words, any increase in risk, however small is totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned. Or another way to put it, supposing you are that person who does get heart-disease from passive smoking, then it's because of smokers that your health has suffered. That's unacceptable to me. How significant does the percentage have to be for it to be taken seriously? 25%? 50%? 75? 99?

How many people have to be knocked down by a car on a busy road does it take for it to be significant enough to have pedestrian crossing installed? 100? 1000? or only 1?

We're not just looking at figures here, we're looking at lives. Is life so cheap that hundreds of people have to die before the cause of those deaths is removed? So, however small the risk might be from passive smoking might be, it is significant enough in my opinion, for something to be done about it... and let's face it, the argument is largely academic now because come 1st July, the ban comes into force! Obviously, the percentage risk was significant enough, otherwise there would be no ban.

And if there was ever a more appropriate saying at this point, then it's, "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!"