Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

Options
1…6791112…16

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Do you think cancer rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

    All this radiation...mobile phones..wifi...electromagnetic forces.

    Do you think cancer detection rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?


  • Options
    #243
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    mikom wrote: »
    Do you think cancer detection rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

    I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).


  • Options
    #244
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    swampgas wrote: »
    Yep, all that electro-magnetic radiation is bad voodoo - better block out the sun while you're at it.

    So you don't think something like that could affect your health?

    Isn't a big part of anti wind turbine protests that noise frequency generated?


  • Options
    #245
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).
    http://www.forschenheiltkrebs.eu/public/img/non_layout/projekt/DIRECT_ueberlebensraten_english_WR_101208.jpg

    Any evidence of that?

    And best be careful reading this. Light is electromagnetic radiation.


  • Options
    #246
    TheLurker
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Do you think cancer rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

    All this radiation...mobile phones..wifi...electromagnetic forces.

    What, there were no electromagnetic forces 100 years ago? That must have made being an atom quite a lot of work :-)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).

    Well you'd be wrong....... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

    Probably all the cancer causing phone calls for ambulances, and cancer causing MRI's etc keeping the young alive.

    Ps. opening that link released 0.00001 grammes of cancer.


  • Options
    #248
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).
    I like how this slots perfectly into this thread - what evidence do you have to back up this belief? And not news stories of children with cancer. Actual numbers and statistics.
    Gits_bone wrote: »
    So you don't think something like that could affect your health?
    Everything has the potential to affect your health. Your shoes? Could be a few micrometres too tight and causing permanent damage to your feet. Your grill? Might be radiating a little too much outwards and causing microscopic skin damage every time you use it.

    What you do is you study stuff and compile statistics to discover what effects they have on health. So far there is no link proven between wireless devices and cancer or cancer rates.
    Isn't a big part of anti wind turbine protests that noise frequency generated?
    Just because it's part of the protests, doesn't make it a fact. :)
    Part of that protest is the claim that wind turbines create noise which cause headaches or something. There is no evidence to support this claim, therefore it can be dismissed as nonsense until such evidence appears.


  • Options
    #249
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    There is no evidence to support this claim, therefore it can be dismissed as nonsense until such evidence appears.

    Unless your username begins with a K, in which case it's perfectly valid for some reason to believe in something that has no evidence and hasn't been disproved...


  • Options
    #250
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    mikom wrote: »
    Well you'd be wrong....... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

    Probably all the cancer causing phone calls for ambulances, and cancer causing MRI's etc keeping the young alive.

    Ps. opening that link released 0.00001 grammes of cancer.

    Why don't animals get cancer at the same rate of humans?


  • Options
    #251
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Why don't animals get cancer at the same rate of humans?

    Why don't humans die around the same time as dogs (11 or 12 years in)?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Why don't animals get cancer at the same rate of humans?
    How do you know they don't?


  • Options
    #253
    TheLurker
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Why don't animals get cancer at the same rate of humans?

    They do get cancer at the same rate.

    Cancer Kills Wild Animals Too
    by Live Science Staff | June 24, 2009 10:12am ET
    "Cancer is one of the leading health concerns for humans," Dr. Denise McAloose, a pathologist for the Wildlife Conservation Society, said in a statement. "But we now understand that cancer can kill wild animals at similar rates."


  • Options
    #254
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    While we ignore science.

    Magnets, how do they work?


  • Options
    #255
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).

    Its not a lie if you believe it.


  • Options
    #256
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Why don't animals get cancer at the same rate of humans?
    Why don;t they, since they're exposed to the same evil electro-magnetic radiation we are?

    If you want to snare people with a clever gotcha question, you should probably should pick something that can't be torn apart with 3 seconds of googling and a passing knowledge of science.


  • Options
    #257
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    On the Pat Kenny show after the break - a Humanist, an Imam and a Jesuit (walk into a bar...) discuss Stephen Fry's "controversial" comments about god!! :eek::eek:


  • Options
    #258
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Do you think cancer rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

    All this radiation...mobile phones..wifi...electromagnetic forces.

    100 years ago you had asbestos, everyone smoked tobacco, air pollution in cities was much worse.

    I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).

    How can you really think that?! 100 years ago we generally had much poorer levels of sanitisation and we had NO vaccinations for diseases like diphtheria, polio, menagitis, hepatitis a, mumps, pneumonia, rubella...


  • Options
    #259
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    hinault wrote: »
    There is evidence to suggest that in fact Earth is the centre of the Universe and that the solar system circle Earth.

    Are you actually serious?


  • Options
    #260
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    hqdefault.jpg


  • Options
    #261
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Shrap wrote: »
    On the Pat Kenny show after the break - a Humanist, an Imam and a Jesuit (walk into a bar...) discuss Stephen Fry's "controversial" comments about god!! :eek::eek:

    Well, that was sh1te.

    Medieval claptrap :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why don;t they, since they're exposed to the same evil electro-magnetic radiation we are?

    If you want to snare people with a clever gotcha question, you should probably should pick something that can't be torn apart with 3 seconds of googling and a passing knowledge of science.


    I know more than enough about science thank you.


  • Options
    #263
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I know more than enough about science thank you.
    So then why would you think that wifi, phones and "electromagnetic forces" cause cancer?


  • Options
    #264
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I know more than enough about science thank you.
    Funny, I've been studying science in one form or another for over 40 years and I don't think I'll ever know "more than enough" about it :)


  • Options
    #265
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I know more than enough about science thank you.

    I don't think even Stephen Hawking could claim that.


  • Options
    #266
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    robindch wrote: »
    Funny, I've been studying science in one form or another for over 40 years and I don't think I'll ever know "more than enough" about it :)

    Much like martial arts, the person who thinks they know a lot are the ones who know the least.


  • Options
    #267
    challengemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Do you think cancer rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

    It's impossible to say with any certainty. The first cause of cancer wasn't determined until the later 1700's. Microscopes weren't commonly used until the 1800's. Metastases were only hypothesised in the late 1800's.

    In terms of diagnostic equipment - MRI was only invented in 1971. The first brain scan using CT was also in 1971. The first PET-CT was operational in 1998. Even medical sonography (ultrasound) was only first used in 1949. Blood tests couldn't be used because monoclonal antibodies were again developed in the late 1900's.

    So 100-200 years ago, short of any visible cancer it was virtually undetectable. Does that mean it didn't exist? If anything it was probably present in equal or greater rates than now.

    Our genetic makeup hasn't changed much in the last 200 years. The DNA Polymerase enzymes I spoke of are so highly evolutionary conserved that they're detectable in protozoans. Thats ~ half a billion years in terms of evolution.

    The rate at which cancerous cells are generated is entirely random. There's 4 nucleotides in DNA. A base pair is one of the pairs A-T or C-G (ie. when they're linked to form a double strand). Base pair mutations can be fixed by proof-reading enzymes. Base pair mutations can have a null effect. It could form a stop codon or a start codon. When the strand is converted to a protein it could have no effect. It may not make sense and won't make a protein. Tumor suppressor proteins will fix or kill cells with damaged DNA... etc etc.

    That's all before you enter the cancer-immune system equilibrium phase. Once a cancerous cell exists, three things will happen.
    • It will be eliminated by the immune system
    • It will persist (equilibrium)
    • It will escape the immune system and grow uncontrolled.

    There was certainly more carcinogen and disease exposure 100-200 years ago. Unfiltered tobacco smoke has been mentioned, but coal smoke, leaded petrol, water pollution (sewer system wasn't until 1850's), leaded paint, lead and other toxic materials used as food colouring. Arsenic was used in many things including pesticides. Aromatic amines in dyes. Radioactivity in water... the list goes on.

    All of which either make DNA damage more likely or hinder the natural protective mechanisms against DNA damage. So it's likely that cancer rates as a whole were increased.

    However, you need to consider the life expectancy at the time too. 200 years ago it was less than half what it is today. So it's also quite likely that many people died before they had a chance to develop cancer.

    TL:DR - The world population in the 1800's was ~1 billion. It's now over 7 billion. With the advent of new diagnostics and the detection of hundreds of cancer types even at early stages, it may seem like prevalence is higher when very likely it's not. This of course isn't helped by the modern day publication meaning people are more aware.


  • Options
    #268
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    robindch wrote: »
    Funny, I've been studying science in one form or another for over 40 years and I don't think I'll ever know "more than enough" about it :)

    I'm sorry if my "enough" isn't as big as your "enough."


  • Options
    #269
    Cossax
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    While we ignore science.

    Magnets, how do they work?

    hqdefault.jpg


  • Options
    #270
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Are you actually serious?
    With this particular poster I would not be one but surprised.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    While we ignore science.

    Magnets, how do they work?

    I know angels are involved somehow but after that it gets mysterious and beyond our ability to comprehend


Advertisement