Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the worst titled article I've seen in a while. So far, they haven't proved any cell phone usage w/ deaths, but I admit the opposite hasn't been proven either. However, it's been proven time and time again that smoking kills.
I guess we'll find out over the next decade, now that everyone and their mothers (literally) use cell phones, what the long-term effects of cell phone radiation and brain cancer are.
On the topic of smoking, I figure I'd post this article that I just read: Smokers' genetic 'double whammy' (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.cancer03apr03,0,7169921.story - broken link)
Here's the opening paragraph:
Quote:
Smoking causes lung cancer. That much is known. But three new studies published today suggest that genes might play a role in why some longtime smokers get the deadly disease and others do not.
On the topic of smoking, I figure I'd post this article that I just read: Smokers' genetic 'double whammy' (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.cancer03apr03,0,7169921.story - broken link)
Here's the opening paragraph:
I saw that this morning as well. Don't like the sound of it. Wonder what exactly it's setting the stage for...
At the least, it's going to set the stage for more debating here.
I'm sorry, but these debates are for people who don't see farther than their noses and unable to understand this witch hunt is not about smoking, but about control and it continues in all aspects of our lives. I'd imagine this article would have something to do with the future chip ideas... Anyway, it's not the time or the place...
I saw that this morning as well. Don't like the sound of it. Wonder what exactly it's setting the stage for...
It's not really setting the stage for anything, and this shouldn't really be news. We've known for a long time that genetics can make one more or less predisposed to get cancer. And that applies whether or not one smokes -- Even those who are otherwise less predisposed to get cancer still raises their risk of doing so by smoking. For instance, a smoker who otherwise stood a 5% chance of getting cancer may increase their risk to 20% instead. A smoker who otherwise stood a 25% chance of contracting cancer might increase it to 50% instead. That doesn't make it any better an idea for the less predisposed person to keep right on smoking; it's still a bad idea for both.
My grandmother has emphysema(she only has the capacity of 1 lung left and is on 90 percent oxygen and can't even talk on the phone for a few minutes without huffing and puffing) and was diagnosed today with lung cancerHer doctor said that she doesn't even have years. Surgery cannot be done because they don't think she could make it through the surgery. Good reasons to not smoke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Her doctor said that she doesn't even have years. Surgery cannot be done because they don't think she could make it through the surgery. Good reasons to not smoke.
