Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

page: 7
72
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I would like everyone to take notice of something important

Did anyone happen to pick up on the fact that A Conscious, after announcing that any scientist who refutes a study put out by anti-tobacco is actually funded by Big Tobacco and is therefore suspect, now has also accused me of "defending" tobacco companies.

I would like anyone to point at one word or one sentence that I wrote that defended Tobacco companies in any way shape or form.

So is A conscious now trying to say that I have no credibility and that I must be a front for big tobacco and like those scientist, anything I say must be suspect?

For everyone' information - Big Tobacco is in the business of selling tobacco to whoever wants to buy it. Information that smoking may be harmful to health has been in the public domain since the 60s. Anybody who doesn't get it by now is a mental moron!

I expect Big Tobacco to lie in thier marketing campaigns - just like I expect any other company who makes a product to lie to me in order to get me to buy thier product.

What I don't expect is for my government, the public health community, the medical community and the scientific community to lie to me - pervert science, extort my money, deny me the right to medical services I pay for, deny me opportunity for employment and housing, spoil my identity, encourage violence against me and deny me human dignity and even the right to raise my own children!

And yet they have done all of those things.

So who is worse here - Big Tobacco or anti-tobacco?

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


damn... you're not working for Philip Morris are you??



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Yes, I stopped smoking over a month ago and have been the hospital three times for SEVERE asthma attacks. I did not get those while smoking unless I was out in a dust storm or around very strong perfume.

Now, on another note, I had a stroke and had to stop. The smoking affected my heart arrthmia. With me, it really did. It aggravated a condition I already have as a result of a congenital defect.

The two years I stopped smoking before, my heart did better, but I caught every Flu, pnemonia etc that came around. Asthma was worse. Nodules formed on my lungs. ( When I started smoking again, the nodules went away, go figure) I also was in the doctors for ulcerative colitis. This NEVER affects me when I smoke. Only when I am NOT smoking. I REALLY believe there is fact to that.

Anyway, I believe smoking can help some things and is bad for other things.
Just like many other medications. Does the Risk out weigh the cost?
For me I have to stop. Stroke from arryhtmia is pretty bad and do not want to do that again.
'
It sucks though that this asthma is so bad I have not left my house since I stopped for the most part because I can not breath.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
*EDIT* - I should also say that I now smoke American Spirit all natural, organic tobacco.


Is that from an Indian reservation?

If so be warned that legislation is in the making to forbid interstate trade of such tobacco. Pity.

Grow your own ASAP I say



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
These tests killed John Wayne. They have contaminated huge aquifers. I wondered about this fallout when I would remove the roofs of buildings that were around during these tests. Just think of the legal liability.


How about Yul Brynner?

Another western actor.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by eniac
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


damn... you're not working for Philip Morris are you??



Eh, no. Could use some decent paid work, but because I have basically vowed to renounce money I cannot work for anyone but for all mankind.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by amatrine
 


Fits my thoughts exactly, well spoken....

Estrella

EDIT: You are between a rock and a hard place... Don´t know what to tell you.. Except perhaps move to an area with less pollution e.g.?

Sorry man.



[edit on 7-7-2009 by Truth4hire]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSecret
well this thread started in a promising way but then became a fight between smokers/non smokers. as usually :@@

i completely agree with smoking bans in public places and i support laws that would prevent parents to smoke around underage children. my opinion is that as an adult you're allowed to do whatever you want to your body but you shouldn't be allowed to make others (especially those who can't defend themselves) inhale your smoke!


I think what is mentioned here is a key issue. Many people don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke any more than they want to be exposed to radiation particles from the testing mentioned in the OP.

I fully understand that a smoker does not want to be told what they can or can't do. I enjoy an occasional glass of wine. This pleasure has things about it that can be considered bad for you, but I feel "I" should have the right to decide if I want to enjoy it or not... not somebody else.

But this is where the issue develops (and I hope I word this right).... When I enjoy that wine, it's effecting me and my health. But as soon as I get behind the wheel and get into an accident because of the alcohol, I may be affecting the health of someone else, or their child's health... maybe even their life.

When a person decides to smoke, they do so at their own risk (clearly the verdict is still out on the possible dangers). But when the second hand smoke reaches others, you are possibly effecting the health of others (again, clearly the verdict is still out on the possible dangers). Aside from the possible health effects, many of us non-smokers have made it pretty clear that the smoke makes us quite ill. It's very nauseating to be exposed to it. (Even some smokers admit to this effect).

Between the ill effects and even a remote chance of second hand smoke being dangerous, why should people be forced to be exposed to the smoke while in public places? To tell people they should "just lock themselves up inside if they don't like it" is using the same logic as saying people should always stay home because the drunk driver should have the right to drive. You are making people ill and could be affecting their health. Sadly, I've even witnessed an old woman sitting with an oxygen tank hacking because of a smoker nearby who didn't care.

It's not so much that people are trying to tell smokers what they can or can't do, (In fact most will sarcastically say to go ahead and kill yourselves if you want to so bad, then there will be less of you) but people don't want to have to breathe in your smoke (or have their kids breathe it) everywhere they go, and these public bans assist with that matter. Some people are considerate enough to understand that, while others are not.

I'm looking forward to there being a way smokers can enjoy themselves without it effecting others. The e-cig is something trying to go in that direction... hopefully there will be more of those options in the future.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I typically just read the articles posted here and do some follow up on my own, the subjects are very interesting and some are very well argued. I only put my two cents in when I see a glaring error in judgment or scientific law. My background is in mathematics and physics so I tend to lend my expertise when my knowledge is useful. So here we go:

A nuclear weapon uses nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, by definition the nuclear action either splits atoms or joins atoms releasing massive amounts of energy at the atomic level, if you could convert the nuclear energy in a cubic mile of seawater into usable energy it would supply the entire U.S. for over 100 years!

Our nuclear weapons are based on the premise of chain reactions, with more recent nukes using heavy water into the mix (hydrogen bombs) in the form of tritium and dueterium, but the entire nuclear blast is made nuclear by the nuclear fuel. Once the nuclear trigger fires, it compresses the the nuclear fuel (uranium, plutonium, ect.) through explosive lenses which crush the spherical nuclear fuel down only a small percentage until it reaches critical mass, and at that point you have the nuclear blast, mix in a little heavy water which magnifies the explosive yield, but here is the REAL question, "Why does the explosion STOP?"

The explosion stops because the chain reaction ceases, and the reaction ceases when the nuclear fuel is consumed. So when we figure the amount of plutonium in the atmosphere from nuclear explosion it is minimal I wouldn't even worry about it, the real issue is plutonium fuel in satellites hitching a rocket ride to space, their fuel is not designed to go critical so in an explosion if the containment vessel ruptures and releases particles of plutonium into the atmosphere we would be looking at some kind of a scenario like the one posted in this article. Supercritical masses such as the ones found in nuclear weapons have zero point safeties, and are very safe unless armed and detonated on purpose at which point the fuel burns itself out.

I personally lend ZERO belief to the supposed facts listed in the original post especially the garbage about cigarettes, sorry cigarette smokers (personally I think everyone should be allowed to do as they please), but lets have the facts, Lung cancer occurs in cigarette smokers at 800%-900% above non-smokers, so the belief that the cigarettes protect you is completely repulsive and demonstrates ignorance.

ARNETT OUT!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ARNETT 187
 


Good grief. Between plutonium, chemicals, and even space junk (that seems to come back at us on occasion), it's a wonder our species even still exists. I wonder how long before our luck runs out.

Whenever I hear about anything toxic or dangerous that we've created, the same old image always seems to come to my mind...





Meh, give it time and someone surely will find health benefits to plutonium too.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Dark Secret

The fact is that scientists still have a very very poor understanding of what CAUSES cancer or even what cancer is.

The HPV virus is certainly under a new spotlight. In addition to its ability to cause cervical cancer, it is a large suspect in lung cancers, mouth, throat cancers. Any cancer that occurs in a body part that is lined with mucous membrane.

As for you thoughts on government regulation of smoking - that is certainly a subject for debate.

You mention smoking in the presence of children (presumably because its "bad" for their health) but you fail to show how the health of children has been improved by smoking bans. Certainly the 800 % increase in childhood asthma rates since the 1960s is cause to suspect that lack of exposure to smoke might contribute to a poorly developed, hypersensitive respiratory system. Please explain to me how today's children - who have hardly been exposed to cigarette smoke - are "healthier" than we were in the 60s.

So are you in favor of banning all sources of smoke in the presence of children (ie no cooking, no fireplaces, no wood burning stoves, no candles, and certainly no air fresheners, no living in buildings constructed of wood with glue) or are you, like A conscious, deciding that since you don't like tobacco smoking, its important to "protect the children" from this sole source of the very same contaminants found in the other sources I have mentioned.

And when you say "public places" - do you mean those places actually owned by the public - live government offices, hospitals etc - or do you mean privately owned spaces where the public may voluntarily choose to enter - like restaurants, bars and private workplaces?


we don't know enough to heal cancer but we know/assume there are some links to the substances that could cause cancers. as i said, smoke is not the only cause but it's something that can be avoided. if a smoker wants to test whether smoking kills or not they are welcome to do so in their private homes as long as they don't smoke around the underage children.

"public" places in my definition are all places outside your home, including private businesses where one works, eats, watches a movie. maybe i used the wrong word.

asthma is caused by kids being constantly inside homes where the only source of air is a furnace filter which may or may not be moldy (i'm sure most homeowners don't regularly exchange AC filters). with all this constant fear that "i can't leave my kids out to play because some pervert will kidnap/rape them" kids don't grow up breathing pollen in the air but rather mold spores. once they are old enough to go out on their own they are suddenly struck by nature and have little to no defense so they get allergies, asthma and other such problems.

you may remember that before the clean air act the air was very bad to breathe. that may have also contributed to asthma in kids. after all the furnace filter can't take out industrial pollutants. only in recent years were surgery grade filters made available to the public.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Dark Secret

Here I will disagree with you completely.

When you have put your money into a privately owned hospitality venue or a private workplace, when you and you alone pay your property taxes and take the risks of losing that money - than you should be the one to set the rules.

There is nothing in this world that stops you from setting up a non-smoking bar if that is what you want to do - BUT usurping government power to force others to is just wrong.

BTW - The fact that government power of regulation had to be usurped in order to enact smoking ban laws and enforce is a strong indication that the majority of the population DO NOT support these draconian laws. If the hospitality sector had the slightest notion that they could make money catering to non-smokers, the smoking bans would have been VOLUNTARY. After all - there is no law the prevented private property owners from implementing their own smoking ban - not is there.

As for the children - how about if we agree on this - I will use my natural right to self determination and my natural right to parent my own children. I will leave you free to do the same.

If you can PROVE that I am harming my children (and not just assume it), then society may step in but not before then.

If you can't PROVE harm - then how about if you just respectfully tuck your "concern" for my children where the sun don't shine.

Better yet - how about if you express your "concern" in a more positive way by contributing an equal amount of taxes that are now extorted from smokers and use the money to feed hungry children and provide for their needs.

Remember to buy a carton of smokes once in awhile - after all, smoking products are now FDA approved and supporting the healthcare for thousands of children.

What would happen to the kids if all the smokers stop smoking?

Tired of Control Freaks.

For the record - I have a career that I enjoy. I am fully employed and I am completely unrelated to any tobacco company, the sale of any tobacco product or the growing of any tobacco product.

I became interested in this topic about 4 years ago when I tried my hardest to find evidence that supported and proved the anti-tobacco position. The harder I dug - the more the horrendous lies became evident. It took about 2.5 years before I finally gave up and admitted that anti-tobacco was lying worse than Big Tobacco ever thought of. Then I started following the money and became absolutely amazed at the billions of dollars that were flowing to anti-tobacco. Once the full scope of the scam became clear to me, I can only express my deepest shock and anger at the level of damage this "holy crusade" has caused to society.

The largest anger was reserved for those who completely discounted any other cause of lung cancer and condemned people to death through their actions. May they rot in hell for their ignorant greed!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Amatrine

I am so very sorry to hear about your health problems. And further I respect your decision to stop smoking. It is at the very heart of liberty that every individual must make decisions for themselves as to what is or is not in their best interests.

In regard to your asthma, I do NOT wish to provide you with medical advice. It is for you and you alone to decide what is best.

However, there is a centuries old practice called sinus irrigation. This is a process of introducing saline into the nose through one nostril until it runs out of the other nostril and repeating the process on the other side.

What sinus irrigation does is to wash away foreign material like pollen, bacteria, viruses ect. that may be aggrevating your asthma.

The saline is natural to your body and not harmful at all and the process is only slightly uncomfortable.

There are various methods for sinus irrigation. There is a neti pot which you can buy at your local pharmacy for less than $10.00. I do not recommend this method because of the small amount of water that the neti pot holds. I suspect because you are so hypersensitive to allergens that this method will not be effective for you.

The next method is a plastic bottle with a tube that runs to the bottom of the bottle so that when you squeeze the bottle, the water is forced out. This bottle comes with pre-packaged saline. It is cheap (less than $15.00) and reasonably effective.

I suggest that you try this method and if sinus irrigation relieves your symptoms....then go whole hog...

The last method is expensive at about $150.00. You can buy it over the internet (just google sinus irrigation). Its a device that looks like a water pic with a large reservoir for the saline solution. Water shoots out of a nozzle with gentle pressure. This device is extremely effective at clearing foreign material out of the sinuses. It may be well worth the bucks if it relieves your asthma.

Try the cheaper methods first. Use it twice a day. Use two packs of the salt instead of just one to make a hypersaline solution.

Caution - do not use table salt! Table salt has contaminates which could damage your sensitive sinuses. Use only the salt packs that you buy at the pharmacy.

I hope this helps. I mention it only because I know that it will do no harm for you to wash out the allergens that accumulate in your sinus cavity. Some people with asthma find this process so effective that they are able to forego their medication entirely!

As always - follow the written directions. PS - this is great for sinus sufferers and kids who get ear infections as well.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

I do speak from knowledge on why smoking is banned in psych wards. Several members of the family have or are currently working in the mental health field, one for many years in an involuntary confinement ward. One of the first thing we discussed in Drugs and Psychology class, inpatients are NOT given stimulants. Sorry folks, but there is a reason people who are given meds are not permitted to smoke in wards and it is primarily to keep them from falling asleep and burning to death which happened here before those rules were universally introduced. It also happend as recently as 2007 in one of the local halfway homes. A pal of mine who is a former longtime field supervisor for the ACT Corp. (the local mental health care organization) backs that up and says it is current policy.

I asked my great-aunt who is 82 and a nurse practitioner and she says not one doctor she worked with in almost 60 years ever "blew smoke" in ANYONE's face to treat a respiratory disease. The same response from a retired reconstructive plastic surgeon who grew up in Ecuador where folks treatments like that are common (and who spent a great chunk of his career repairing smoking-related cancer damage). The lengths some smokers go to defend a revolting and unhealthy drug addiction are astounding but that explains why you guys are so touchy. One thing is for sure, if your doctor is advocating the use of a dangerous and toxic habit to cure a disease that also is caused by environmental pollution, you need to report him or her to the AMA.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elliot
reply to post by ThatDGgirl
 

Personally, I don't believe that self obsessed psycopaths who rule the world would ever take such a risk with their own 'human' lives.

Hence....my conclusion is that Lizards do NOT get cancer! Thicker skin, and all that!

If there is a vet 'on board' ATS, I'd like to know if cancer is a disease of lizards and I want to know this even though it makes me sound like some stark raving bonkers idiot. (Maybe I am a stark raving bonkers idiot, but I still want to know).

Enquiring minds are waiting, Veterinarians!

Do lizards get cancer or if they do, is it a rare, rare disease of the species?


Elliot... You've hit the nail on the head. Not a stark raving bonkers idiot at all.

I am certain that the lizard hearted have different diseases - or maybe none at all... I haven't read past this post, so I don't know if any vets answered...

I just had to say that I believe you got it just right.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Dark Secret

As for the children - how about if we agree on this - I will use my natural right to self determination and my natural right to parent my own children. I will leave you free to do the same.

If you can PROVE that I am harming my children (and not just assume it), then society may step in but not before then.

If you can't PROVE harm - then how about if you just respectfully tuck your "concern" for my children where the sun don't shine.

Better yet - how about if you express your "concern" in a more positive way by contributing an equal amount of taxes that are now extorted from smokers and use the money to feed hungry children and provide for their needs.

Remember to buy a carton of smokes once in awhile - after all, smoking products are now FDA approved and supporting the healthcare for thousands of children.


well i don't know how other children of smokers are doing but my parents were both smokers. i used to get sick as a child and teen almost every month with respiratory symptoms. i was diagnosed with asthma and fed all kind of crappy medication, steroids, inhalers, pills with terrible side effects. when my mom quit smoking after seeing me having an asthma attack that was worse than usual and forced my father to smoke outside i got somewhat better. a few years later at 18 i moved out for college and my asthma was gone within probably the first month. i even had a doc's excuse for my phys ed classes - but guess what? i attended every one of them and passed just fine. i was off the asthma medication and never needed it again.

it's been decades since i had my last asthma attack, in my parent's home. my current stats are extremely good and other than my annual physical i barely see a doctor.

i hope that's food for thought for some of you smokers. think twice before smoking in the air that your children are breathing


[edit on 7-7-2009 by DarkSecret]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


My siblings and I went through much the same thing when we were young. Both my parents smoked and our whole family developed many health problems. My sister and brother had breathing problems, and I became very nauseated and coughed non-stop when they smoked. We had no energy. If I was in a confined area during their smoking I would actually start to vomit and my mother would always hand me a bowl knowing what was coming.

The coughing and health issues our family experienced got increasingly worse over the years until, thankfully, my parents realized they needed to quit. (My sister and I used desperate measures to try and get them to quit like hiding the cigarettes or writing "this will kill you" on each cigarette, lol).

Within a couple months my siblings and I were no longer coughing or having breathing problems. I even joined the cross country team in high school and did really well. My parents coughed out a lot of disgusting stuff during their recovery, but then became very healthy and energetic. Today they are in their 70's and still go dancing on cruise ships!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 
Starred.Ahh a subject you don't want to think to long or hard on because of the true ramifications to all of us.

I've wondered about the same thing many times concerning the "nuclear testing" we were publically told about. You're right the afterlife is quite long and any particles at all ingested or contacted would probably result in cancers as well as birth defects and actual changing of the subjects DNA on a permanent level.

I can just see the aliens on the Moon or Mars saying to each other, ahh "shi& the kids have found the matches".




United States nuclear tests were conducted on an intermittent basis from July 1946 to October 1958. During this period, nuclear tests were conducted in groups known as "operations" or "test series", each series was a distinct operation that was organized and carried out independently of other operations.

On 31 October 1958, just after it concluded the largest test series to date, the United States entered into a unilateral testing moratorium announced by President Eisenhower with the understanding that the former Soviet Union also would refrain from conducting tests. The Soviet Union honored this moratorium initially, but secretly prepared for a massive testing campaign which commenced in September 1961, and included the largest nuclear tests ever conducted.

On September 15, 1961, the United States resumed testing at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) on a year-round basis with Operation Nougat. From that time to the present, tests have principally been grouped for fiscal and reporting purposes into "operations" or "series" according to the fiscal year in which they took place. For example, fiscal year 1963 tests -- which began 1 July 1962 and extended through 30 June 1963 -- were in the Operation Storax series.

Important exceptions to this scheme were a number of test series conducted during 1962-63:

Operation Dominic (which also been called Dominic I), conducted between 25 April and 4 November of 1962 (and thus overlapping Nougat and Storax); and which included
the Department of Defense (DoD) Operation Fishbowl high-altitude tests in the Pacific.
Operation Sunbeam (also known as Dominic II), four weapons effects tests conducted by the DoD at the NTS between 7 July and 17 July 1962 (concurrent with Storax)
Operation Roller Coaster, four zero-yield tests conducted jointly by the US and UK at Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) between 15 May and 9 June 1963 (concurrent with Storax).
Atmospheric testing concluded with the test Dominic/Fishbowl Tightrope on 4 November 1962. The signing of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty on 5 August 1963 in Moscow halted all further atmospheric testing by both superpowers.

The Fiscal Year based underground series was perturbed in 1976, when the federal government changed the fiscal year to begin on October 1 and end on September 30. Accordingly, the Fiscal Year 1976 series, Operation Anvil, did not end on June 30, but was extended through September 30, 1976 -- a period of 15 months.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...


Fear makes people and countries do strange and horrible things.

Now, contemplate this: My family and I use to live near Zion, Il. There was a active Nuclear Power Plant there on Lake Michigan. We went to a park in the general area (you could see the Power Station in the distance) as a family for a picnic (picnic didn't get unpacked and the kids were packed in the car and brought home for "decontamination" after I found several five leaf clovers and a couple flying bugs with two heads. We also noticed the flora around the area was mishappened and "weak looking".

We have tons of nuclear waste "safely stored" all over the country, mainly I think out west.



Zion Nuclear Power Station was the third dual-reactor nuclear power plant in the Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) network and served Chicago and the northern quarter of Illinois. The plant was built in 1973, and the first unit started producing power in December, 1973.[1] The second unit came online in September, 1974.[1] This power generating station is located on 257 acres (1.04 km2)[2] of Lake Michigan coastline, in the city of Zion, Lake County, Illinois. It is approximately 40 direct-line miles north of Chicago, Illinois and 42 miles (68 km) south of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Zion Nuclear Power Station was retired on February 13, 1998.[1] The plant had not been in operation since February, 1997, after a control-room operator accidentally shut down Reactor 1 and then tried to restart it without following procedures.[3] Reactor 2 was already shut down for refueling at the time of the incident. ComEd concluded that the plant could not produce competitively priced power because it would have cost $435 million to order steam generators which would not pay for themselves before the plant's operating license expired in 2013. This analysis was predicated on no license extension which at the time was the norm, however since then multiple plants have replaced steam generators and extended the license by 20 years.

All nuclear fuel was removed permanently from the reactor vessel and placed in the plant's on-site spent fuel pool by March 9, 1998. Plans are to keep the facility in long-term safe storage (SAFSTOR) until unit 2's operating license expires on November 14, 2013. Decontamination and dismantlement are to begin after this date. The estimated date for closure is December 31, 2026


en.wikipedia.org...



Gary Coleman, a famous actor that was on Different Strokes was from Zion (Mr. Coleman is quite short with some serious health problems).

As bad as the Nuclear testing was don't start contemplating our "Safe" Nuclear Power Plants. If you do, you may really get nervous.


I don't want to go back to living in a cave with no toilet, hot water or lights, however anything that spews a waste that lives for hundreds of thousands of years and can alter our DNA permanently, we have no business using.

(When I showed my husband the one fly I did manage to catch, he immediately took our two sons and loaded them in the car so fast it wasn't funny. When we got home, he jokenly rushed them into the shower (ahhh wonderful Lake Michigan water) for decontamination.

It's all around us, everywhere and you can't see it, taste it or feel it, but it's there.

All of our power companies are some of the largest lobbyist in Washington and have mucho power. Nuclear Energy is a scary entity in and of itself. We simply do not have the technology of disposing of it safely yet. Burying it out west or shipping it to third world countries is not the answer.



As far as smoking, I lost my mother (age 10) to lung cancer She smoked Pall Malls unfiltered.

We didn't get much warning. My mother was a healthy working woman. One day she started coughing up a little tiny bit of blood. A couple days later she went into the hospital for exploratory surgery. She was then given anywhere from a few weeks to maybe a couple months. She died on February 23, 1963. Two weeks after she first started coughing up blood.

She never got to meet my husband or kids.

I miss my mother and miss that I never got to know her as an adult.

Cigerettes SUCK BIG TIME


Cigerettes like the Power Companies are big business and carry a lot of weight in Washington.






[edit on 8-7-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I believe A Conscious was was pointing out the fact that the nicotine in tobacco smoke is addictive or habit forming (whichever terminology you wish to use) while barbecuing and burning compost is not, which obviously leads to tobacco smoke being inhaled more frequently than the smoke from the family BBQ pit.

This may be difficult to understand for those of you who can only "google" facts, but in places called libraries, you can find reprints of news and magazine articles from the late 19th century stating the correlation between tobacco and cancer.

Calling tobacco "medicinal" is the same as a snake oil salesman calling his arsenic tonic as a "cure-all".

Also, just to throw in Godwin's Law: Even Hitler was anti tobacco and believed it caused cancer.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by misfitoy
 


Your parents handed you a bowl so you could vomit in it...

You were forced to inhale their smoke in a confined space and were coughing all the time when they were smoking...

Luckily your parents fully recovered after quitting and coughing up horrible stuff so they can enjoy a life of luxery and cruises...

With all due respect mistfitoy, would you mind that I have some serious doubts about what you are posting here?







top topics



 
72
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join