new mix room

Interesting point, Andy - the real case is that these people exposed to radioactivity develop Super Fucking Useless syndrome and go around whining about how living next to a nuclear facility will give them cancer when they're 95 years old.

Jeff
 
JBroll said:
Chernobyl hasn't had the impact we thought it would - no leukemia, very little actual cancer, more killed in the explosion than from side effects to the best of our knowledge, and a very low projection for cancer death in the future - 9000 out of six and a half million thought to be in extreme danger may die from it, so they will have lost more to bad vodka and smoking. Do keep in mind that irradiation is used in a lot of places where the word 'radiation' doesn't mean 'evil bad death stuff KILL IT NOW!' (including food on space flights) and has great effect in killing off whatever anaerobic bacteria may be living in there, that radiation treatment is a big part of getting rid of many types of cancer (although in more controlled doses); 'radiation sickness' proper requires a lot of exposure and is only really found in people who originally produced and/or handled lots of the early radioactive materials like radium (like Marie Curie) and nuclear fuel in early Soviet test programs. Radiation does not necessarily mean death - more people die from talking on their phones while driving dangerously than from getting cancer because of them.

Jeff
Click to expand...


Why don't you say this at the hundreds kids come in Italy from ukraine every year with leucemia?
 
Clarifying the grammar would help somewhat, I can't quite make out what that means.

I've seen investigations left and right saying that from the actual event only a handful of people wound up with thyroid cancer, and the cause of that isn't always clear. Every one that I can recall seeing, including the Chernobyl forum, says that the massive leukemia increase has not been actually seen, and while there are tons of rumors and misdiagnoses, no expected increase in leukemia has been substantiated.

Jef
 
JBroll said:
Clarifying the grammar would help somewhat, I can't quite make out what that means.

I've seen investigations left and right saying that from the actual event only a handful of people wound up with thyroid cancer, and the cause of that isn't always clear. Every one that I can recall seeing, including the Chernobyl forum, says that the massive leukemia increase has not been actually seen, and while there are tons of rumors and misdiagnoses, no expected increase in leukemia has been substantiated.

Jef
Click to expand...

It's true
 
Yeah but where are you guys hearing this stuff? I want sources, dammit...this is an important topic.

I spoke with a nurse who told me only 10% of her cancer patients have it because of smoking. I'm not advocating cigarettes--obviously they fuck up your body--but I doubt they're as bad as you'd think given their media coverage.

All I'm saying is that if I was a wealthy power mogul (energy, oil, etc), and I knew it's chemicals fucked up your body, I'd do whatever I could to try and blame it on something else, like cigarettes. Granted, I'm much less accomplished than your Enron friends, but I'm just speaking my part, knowwammsayin'?
 
To add to the off topic convo...I have a degree in Nuclear Medicine and work in a cancer center (the ol' day job). When I was in school, one of my professors actually based his PHD work on the premise that some radiation exposure was beneficial to our health. Granted, his study was based on lab mice life spans, but he did prove overwhelmingly that low dose radiation exposed mice lived longer than high dose exposed or no dose exposed mice..."no dose" means background level radiation or what we all are exposed to on a daily basis...Interesting stuff. We talked about Chernobyl in school, but I've forgot it all.

But, through WWII and Chernobyl (immediate effects, the fallout and long term effects), a LOT of what we do in nuclear medicine got it's start through these catastrophic events. Radioactivity is a crazy thing to wrap your head around, for sure.
 
nwright said:
But, through WWII and Chernobyl (immediate effects, the fallout and long term effects), a LOT of what we do in nuclear medicine got it's start through these catastrophic events.
Click to expand...

That's also a very relative statement when it comes to recording....and several other things that we use and take for granted in the "modern" era.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
Yeah but where are you guys hearing this stuff? I want sources, dammit...this is an important topic.

I spoke with a nurse who told me only 10% of her cancer patients have it because of smoking. I'm not advocating cigarettes--obviously they fuck up your body--but I doubt they're as bad as you'd think given their media coverage.

All I'm saying is that if I was a wealthy power mogul (energy, oil, etc), and I knew it's chemicals fucked up your body, I'd do whatever I could to try and blame it on something else, like cigarettes. Granted, I'm much less accomplished than your Enron friends, but I'm just speaking my part, knowwammsayin'?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, interesting. Was she referencing lung ca in particular (meaning only 10% of lung ca pt.'s are from smoking), or 10% of her total patient load (which encompasses all cancers)? I also wonder if your geographical location and socioeconomic status of said location plays a role. I'm in Indiana (the heart of the midwest), and I definitely think that cigarettes play a role in lung cancer, BIG time.
 
nwright said:
Hmmm, interesting. Was she referencing lung ca in particular (meaning only 10% of lung ca pt.'s are from smoking), or 10% of her total patient load (which encompasses all cancers)? I also wonder if your geographical location and socioeconomic status of said location plays a role. I'm in Indiana (the heart of the midwest), and I definitely think that cigarettes play a role in lung cancer, BIG time.
Click to expand...

You know, I can't remember. I think she was just your basic nurse. It was a while ago. Good point though.
 
Andy Sneap said:
We had an interesting discussion when cradle were here. How come when soon to be super heroes get exposed to radiation of sorts, they only develope really useful superpowers? How come its not something really useless like a huge big toe or the ability to reverse park?
Click to expand...


Pancreas man...fighting off villians with the smell of his inflamed pancreas

"here he comes......:puke: oh dammm thats nasty"
 
Andy Sneap said:
We had an interesting discussion when cradle were here. How come when soon to be super heroes get exposed to radiation of sorts, they only develope really useful superpowers? How come its not something really useless like a huge big toe or the ability to reverse park?
Click to expand...
A huge big toe could useful to kick some giant big ass actually.:Smug:
 
You think guys that wireless is worse than a cable?
Actually every cable on this earth generates a magnetic field more or less.
Say you got a tv plugged into the wall-socket, that cable generates a magnetic field: the more you're exposed to, the more you're at risk of all that shit.
That's actually what a lot of scientist, physicist say, anyway I don't believe it really that much.
On the other hand there are a lot of scientists that say the opposite, being near a mobile phone/computer won't cause you brain cancer.
it' since 1986 that I play/work in front of a computer (well known to be a big magnetic field generator). When I was kid I played many hour a day to amiga/commodore 64 never had a problem with my sight or having bad headache.
It's 6 years now that I'm a computer programmer and I work 8/9 hours a day then I get home and stay other 2 hours, never having/had a problem.
I think most of the problem is from food/air we breathe/environment etc etc
 
JBroll said:
Chernobyl hasn't had the impact we thought it would - no leukemia, very little actual cancer, more killed in the explosion than from side effects to the best of our knowledge, and a very low projection for cancer death in the future - 9000 out of six and a half million thought to be in extreme danger may die from it, so they will have lost more to bad vodka and smoking. Do keep in mind that irradiation is used in a lot of places where the word 'radiation' doesn't mean 'evil bad death stuff KILL IT NOW!' (including food on space flights) and has great effect in killing off whatever anaerobic bacteria may be living in there, that radiation treatment is a big part of getting rid of many types of cancer (although in more controlled doses); 'radiation sickness' proper requires a lot of exposure and is only really found in people who originally produced and/or handled lots of the early radioactive materials like radium (like Marie Curie) and nuclear fuel in early Soviet test programs. Radiation does not necessarily mean death - more people die from talking on their phones while driving dangerously than from getting cancer because of them.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Man, i had cancer and my chimiotherapist said the number of patients increased 800% since Chernobyl. I live in Bucharest wich is "close" to Ukraine. They say they never had in the past such a big number of young people with cancer (i'm 27). BTW, i got cured with radiotherapy:worship: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PhilR
New rehearsal room builds under way (image heavy)
Replies
2
Views
763
Andy Sneap
PhilR
P
Plec
The Panic Room, New Studio (pics)
Replies
43
Views
6K
Andy Sneap
Plec
P
MetalWorks
Building low cost Home Studio in Garage
Replies
91
Views
11K
Andy Sneap
MetalWorks
M
Tommy Gun
Natural drums, new mix room.
Replies
3
Views
476
Practice Room
solphilcox
S
Viral_Tyler
Leasing My First Studio Room!! WOOO!!
Replies
6
Views
925
Practice Room
Viral_Tyler
V
Top Bottom
Back