Articles
Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login

Username

Password

Register Here

Forum
 

Forum posts for Poison in Mr. Clean!

meh
Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 05, 2006
You can't avoid carcinogens, face that fact. If you live in a city, if you drink tap water, if you eat almost anything you are going to ingest chemicals and ingredients that are shown to cause cancer.

Its not just 'personal care products' and food, many, many products of modern society are shown to have direct links to cancer. From cell phones** to the ‘Gladware’ you store your leftovers in, carcinogens are everywhere!

Additionally, just think about what all these cell phones and Wifi internet signals are doing to our bodies. Radio waves and microwaves constantly streaming through your body can't be all that healthy. Now I am no 'Rocket Surgeon' (if I may borrow the term), but your best defense against cancer is avoiding things like smoking and asbestos to reduce your chances.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, and sweet lord don't get me started on Teflon. I swear to god that shit is going to eradicate the human race.

But basically I think the point is you can't worry about shit like this. Just get up and enjoy yourself each day as much as possible. Contribute to society in some way and don't take things too seriously.

FUCK YOU CANCER.. :)

** I read a technique that can cook an egg with two cellphones... Next time you are at my place remind me and we have to try it out... (it takes less than 3 minutes!!)

We're all screwed.
Posted by mike on Mar 06, 2006
My dad has a theory that I have modified that goes like this:

If you experience physical trauma you are at a much higher risk of developing cancer. The larger the trauma the greater the risk. He has a bunch of stories that are relied on as a kind of empirical evidence or inductive reasoning to support this theory. It's quite fantastic really.

I like it becasue it fits my knowledge/theory of what cancer is and how it forms. My theory (based on what I think are at least some facts) is that cancer is essentially an irregular division of a cell during your body's regeneration. This irregularly developed cell does not have the inherent ability to commit suicide on command like the cells in the rest of your body, and since it is one of your own cells your immune system doesn't pick up on it and try to actively kill it. This cell is thought to be a regular cell by the rest of the body and is then called upon to replicate itself, and the resulting cells are also defective. Because these cells can't kill themselves and are defetive they grow out of control and don't function as required by the body. This screws things up and eventually can kill you if your body can't get it under control.

Anyway...trauma to the body would require large and rapid regeneration which could potentially result in some mistakes and screwy cells.

I think the point of it all is that you must understand that there are an unfortunately large number of things that are outside of your direct control (even within yourself). Shit will happen and you can't do anything about it. Just try to live kind of healthy and not get screwed up too much too often and it'll work out how it works out.

The sun is great and we can't live without it. The sun causes cancer.
We have to breathe. At this point I am convicned that the air (everywhere, but more so in heavily populated areas) causes cancer.
We have to eat. There is bad stuff in everything at this point, including the soil and therefore even organic foods, that will cause cancer.
We are mostly water and need what... 8 glasses a day (as if we drink that much!). The vast majority of water is treated with stuff that will kill you in larger doses. Natural water sources are full of bactria and such that will kill you (treated water has made us weak and useless). I am sure that if the chemicals don't give you cancer the bateria will.

If you told me that sleeping gave you cancer I would believe you. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that living gives you cancer, it's in you now and dormant (hopefully). It's just a kind of a crap shoot as to whether or not the cancer will wake up and try to kill you, all you can do is try to stack the odds in your favour.

Don't worry about cancer. If cancer doesn't get you the boogeyman will, or mad cow, or a bus, or a walrus, or that guy with shifty eyes you see sometimes, or avian flu, or old age, or if you go crazy with worry over cancer... yourself.

I pretty much have the same look as you
Posted by kristian on Mar 06, 2006
...and I work in cancer research. So cancer is defined as uncontrolled cell growth. This uncontrolable growth can be caused by any multitude of factors. You have repair mechanisms that detect and fix any mutations that occur in your genes, and that helps you not get cancer. These mutations can be casued by genetic defects, exposure to carcinogens, radiation, etc. You have like 35,000 genes (although I am a "scientist" I am uncertain of this number, but it's a lot) and every time a cell divides, there is the potential for error in these genes, many of which could control replication. Basically what surprises me is that we don't all have cancer right now. Honestly, maybe it's because of the environment I work in, but I am surprised more people don't have cancer.

And while I'm no the subject I would like to do my part to stop the absolute ignorant rumor that "there is a cure to cancer, but the government doesn't want to release it". Fuck, don't be so God damned stupid. First of all, understand that cancer is not one disease, but many. For example, within breast cancer there are at least five different sub-types, which could certainly be further broken down into more sub-categories. And that's just breast, not to mention, colon, prostate, pancreatic, ovarian, melanoma, etc, etc. There are litereally thousands of scientists (possibly millions) and billions of dollars spent every year trying to understand cancer and come up with a better treatment. Now because cancer is so diverse, it is very unlikely that there be one cure-all treatment. But that aside, do you honestly think think that a multi-national pharmaceutical company is going to spend billions of dollars to discover a so-called "cure" and not release it? Do you realize the profits they would be losing out on? And how would it benefit the government? They spend millions of dollars every year subsidizing cancer research, don't you think that money could be better spent with a cure? And what about the huge drain on the medical system that cancer patients are? Seriously, if everyone ever says that there is a cure for cancer, smack them.

Oh, and yeah, don't let all this get you down. I have also come to the conclusion that everything will kill you. I refuse to let myself live in fear. If it's not cancer, then it's SARS, terrorists, ebola (what ever happened to good ole ebola) or avian flu. Marilyn Manson said in Bowling for Columbine that the media propagates a culture of fear to keep up consumption, and I think that is the most acurate thing I have ever heard anyone say.

Whatevs Kristian "The Scientist" Rogers
Posted by Miguel on Mar 06, 2006

Everyone knows Bush and Rumsfeld invented cancer cuse they hate black people and they want the pharmaceuticals to make money. AIDS too.....and probably the Black Plague if that's still around.

also...
Posted by cosmicfish on Mar 06, 2006
I know there is unavoidable junk everywhere...

All this antibiotic wipe crap for spraying on your kids toys and wiping your counters freaks me out too.

Sleeping does give you cancer!

yeah..
Posted by jessie on Mar 06, 2006
the world has gone to shit, nothing is pure anymore and consumption is at an all time high...diseases exist, but health care solutions are way than 100yrs ago, hell 10 yrs ago (THANKS SCIENCE)

You have to take the good with the bad. Sure there is pollution everywhere, we can't escape chemicals we shouldn't ingest and we love to disinfect things. but we can also travel anywhere in the world in 24hrs, talk to people we don't know via the interweb, and enjoy our home theatres, pretty cars, 24 inch monitors (fuck you pete!), books, movies, video games, and whatever else you enjoy doing in your spare time.

if you feel helpless about the envirnment, than help out.

Hey!
Posted by Nerhael on Mar 06, 2006
If you saw how beautiful and friendly it looked, sitting there on the desk, you couldn't hate it.

You know, with all this crap that you get upset that companies make, you have to realize that they wouldn't make that shit if people wouldn't buy it.

People are almost too obsessed with anything that will give them the illusion of clean and sterile...

everything is going according to plan.
Posted by sarah on Mar 06, 2006
we as a species are bound to wipe oursevles out. it's simple evolution.

.
Posted by phduffy on Mar 06, 2006
we as a species are bound to wipe oursevles out. it's simple evolution.

What possible definition of evolution are you using to arrive at this conclusion?

...
Posted by crux on Mar 08, 2006
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Ie
Posted by Nerhael on Mar 08, 2006
Viruses evolve faster than us, and destroy us.

SEMANTICS POH-LEECE
Posted by Miguel on Mar 08, 2006
But by that definition, is humanity wiping itself out?

A term like that brings to mind nuclear war or hyper-intelligent apes conquering us, not a slow ascent into a superior life form.

As I understand it, evolution is brought about by biological adaptation to environmental conditions, so if we wiped ourselves out or even improved ourselved through genetic engineering or fusion with giant anime robots, it wouldn't be evolution in the traditional sense.

I want a sexy giant anime robot right now!

Oh Miguel
Posted by Katie on Mar 08, 2006
"I want a sexy giant anime robot right now!"

Seriously?

You're cut off.

phduffy
Posted by sarah on Mar 08, 2006
Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events. A large majority of biologists/anthropologists think we are currently in the process of a sixth mass extinction and that up to 90% of species could be wiped out (including humans). Furthermore, this sixth round of extinction is almost entirely the result of humans (I said almost).

Evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments. These characteristics tend to increase in frequency in a population while those characteristics that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency (a process known as Natural Selection).

Natural Selection is what drives evolutionary change; a population’s ability to survive and more importantly reproduce in a particular environment is what makes it more successful than another. However, the rate at which a population can evolve is very gradual and can take many generations. The pace at which we are currently altering our environment is at a much higher rate than ever before, obviously due to technological advances in the past two hundred years and our extreme dependence on this advances. If we continue to alter our surroundings at such a rapid pace we as a population will not be able to adapt fast enough and the possibility of total destruction is much very a real thing.

Um, I think this makes sense?



...
Posted by crux on Mar 08, 2006
The definition I provided in reference to Sarah's comment was meant to be applied to world evolution in general, not human evolution specifically. Where the "better form" will be a planet without us. Now for obvious reasons I'm not entirely fond of the idea of the extinction of the human race, but I do find it hard to think of a way this world wouldn't be better off without us running around progressing the hell out of things on a daily basis.

Also, the term 'evolution' doesn't need to be restricted to biological adaptation or natural selection. It can simply mean a continuing process of change. Or if you're a mathematician, "The extraction of a root of a quantity".

All that being said, I too would appreciate a sexy giant anime robot.

Now I am become like Death the destroyer of Worlds.

?
Posted by mike on Mar 09, 2006
I thought Galactus was the destroyer of worlds.

Their can be only two...
Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 09, 2006
There are only two who are properly described as "the destroyers of worlds......"

1 -Oppenhiemer
2 - Unicron

Idiots!

...
Posted by crux on Mar 10, 2006
I was leaning towards Oppenhiemer with that. It seemed to relate to some of what Sarah was saying what with the sixth mass extinction and technological advances we've made yet might not be capable of adapting to the possesion of.

There's a book by James Morrow I think some of you would like.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156002086/sr=8-1/qid=1141999445/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0567912-3153521?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I've recently re-read it and found it to be even better the second time around. I could post a review of it (and still might), but I'd prefer if some or one of you read it.

yep
Posted by cosmicfish on Mar 11, 2006
it's kind of funny that humans are the only species that are self-destructive

on earth anyway

But..
Posted by crux on Mar 12, 2006
Not exactly funny "ha-ha".