Wifi / cell phone users

jeremymarcinko

I agree...I'm not wanting to minimize women here...just saying the reason for the money is about superiority...and the opportunity to reproduce which is our primitive nature. Today's women don't need men to support them , I get that. My assertions have nothing to do with self esteem, but rather woman's natural desire for an alpha...currently in our American society money is a symbol of power, and a method for men to compete for superiority. I'm saying that our desire for money is driven by our desire to be an Alpha...and nothing can make a man feel more Alpha than a womans desire for reproduction...even though reproduction isn't always the goal. It's a very powerful system that ensures the continued replacement of our species.

sucks2beme

Joey Ward wrote: »

sucks2beme wrote: »

Then I'm a dead man. I worked in two way radio, as well as radar and TACAN as a GI.
Cellphones are just low power toys compared to that.

For real, do you think or know that this technology in the past has hurt you ?

No, I don't
As far as studies go, remember the studies about artificial sweetners?
They faked the results to get more grant money.

Joey Ward

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

mmm...I love microwave popcorn..movie theater butter please

IS THAT REAL BUTTER OR FACTORY PLASTIC MARGARINE?

Joey Ward

tonyb wrote: »

obieone wrote: »

The only way to avoid this stuff, would be to live 'off the grid', and become a "homesteader"
Have fun with that.

LOL....Reminds me of that pizza commercial.

Thing is with a lot of these "warnings" is they go by the extremes. For instance, too much of xyz is bad for you by x study from some university. Well, most anything is bad for you when ingested in extreme amounts. Even vitamins have the opposite effect if you pop them like M&M's.

I think the point of the wi-fi/cell phone thing is some are hitting the extremes. They have that cell phone glued to their ear/eyes all day and night. Then wi-fi everything in their house/work by numerous devices. To say ALL is bad is a bit misleading. Everything in moderation....the yin and the yang thing. When you abuse something, anything, it's going to turn out bad.

Remember when having a microwave caused cancer ? Well, yeah....keep your head up against it for 24/7 on high and I'm sure you may have some detrimental effects, but who does that ? Moderation kids...that's the key to a long life.

BACK THEN IT WAS THE MICRO OVEN BUT LOOK AT ALL THE MICRO STUFF OUT THERE NOW PLUS ALL THE TOWERS.

ZLTFUL

Joey Ward wrote: »

IS THAT REAL BUTTER OR FACTORY PLASTIC MARGARINE?

And yet that factory plastic margarine is actually better for you than real butter. Go figure.

2 sides to every coin...the kicker being who is paying for whichever side of the coin.

Joey Ward

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Joey Ward wrote: »

IS THAT REAL BUTTER OR FACTORY PLASTIC MARGARINE?

And yet that factory plastic margarine is actually better for you than real butter. Go figure.

2 sides to every coin...the kicker being who is paying for whichever side of the coin.

MARGARINE IS NOT GOOD FOR THE BRAIN.

jeremymarcinko

Neither is fear. Just live and enjoy.

Joey Ward

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

Neither is fear. Just live and enjoy.

Agree, live and enjoy and...........beware of microwaves.
Cheers

ZLTFUL

Here you go Joey...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

Unfortunately, if you remove everything in the known and probable carcinogen list, you would have to remove naturally occurring agents within your own body.

One that sticks out is progesterone. Women create this naturally during things like menstruation and pregnancy and all humans create it during their embryonic genesis.
It also has a major part in our brains developing and working properly.

Sunlight is a "probable" carcinogen...and yet we need it to survive, not only in the food that needs it for fuel but also in that it causes the body to produce vitamin D.

If we cut everything out of our lives that some organization somewhere was paid to say was bad for us, we would simply cease to be.

So how about we stop with the blatant attempt to spread FUD?

Joey Ward

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Here you go Joey...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

Unfortunately, if you remove everything in the known and probable carcinogen list, you would have to remove naturally occurring agents within your own body.

One that sticks out is progesterone. Women create this naturally during things like menstruation and pregnancy and all humans create it during their embryonic genesis.
It also has a major part in our brains developing and working properly.

Sunlight is a "probable" carcinogen...and yet we need it to survive, not only in the food that needs it for fuel but also in that it causes the body to produce vitamin D.

If we cut everything out of our lives that some organization somewhere was paid to say was bad for us, we would simply cease to be.

So how about we stop with the blatant attempt to spread FUD?

No DOUBT about it, microwaves are really a danger thats out of contol.
Cheers

WilliamM2

Joey Ward wrote: »

No DOUBT about it, microwaves are really a danger thats out of contol.
Cheers

And vaccines, don't forget the horrible vaccines:

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine-safety-legal-rights-1313.html

tonyb

All the examples you guys bring up are also examples of the extremes.

Sunlight- yeah....we need it, good for us, but if you sit outside all day and bake in it for years you can bet skin cancer will be in your future. Abuse of a good thing equals bad outcomes.

BBQ is a know cancer causing agent too, cooked meat to a crisp. How do we know this ? Feed rats nothing but charred BBQ meat for a month straight ? Extremes again.

You eat McDonalds 3 times a day for 60 days, your gonna feel it.....but who does that ? And...if they did their a frickin' moron. Does that mean Mickey D's is bad for you ? No....not in moderate consumptions, but you hit the extremes and yeah, it's gonna hurt you. DUH....inject some common sense in this stuff and read past the agenda driven gibberish.

ZLTFUL

I'm trying to Tony...but Joey has me convinced that I need to get rid of all of the equipment I own and work with that emits and EM field!

It's gonna be tough for me to work in IT with an abacus...but by god, I will be healthy!

cfrizz

tonyb wrote: »

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

So it all boils down to man's desire for a little piece. Money is just our socialistic method of superiority. Women's emotional nature kept us from continuing to beat one another for dominance. Women became more interested in man's ability to provide the basic needs for the children. it's all about reproduction.

Have to disagree pal, more so about the money. Women with low self esteem want men to "take care of them". Give them a certain lifestyle. To some, having a baby insures that. That's why you see so many women throw themselves at sports figures with big money contracts.

Your assertions may be correct, but in a different time period.

Agreed Tony. Now-a-days for most women it's not about reproduction, it's about security, and being safe. If you are having trouble keeping a roof over your head, and food on the table. And if you're lucky enough to have a man with money, that you yourself don't have to work that's a bonus!

But these women with low self esteem are also too stupid to realize that hooking up with some loser and having a kid or two won't enable them to keep the man, he'll simply knock her up and then move on to the next stupid woman who is dumb enough to buy his line!

A good chunk of these women are also lazy a$$ losers who aren't willing to work to provide for themselves. And the men themselves are simply lazy a$$ losers simply looking for a good time and a dumb woman who will be stupid enough to have a little job while he stays unemployed looking for another woman to screw.

Unfortunately, neither of these two types of losers will ever grow up and we all end up paying for them with our taxes going for their Medicare/Medicaid/welfare payments.

Joey Ward

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I'm trying to Tony...but Joey has me convinced that I need to get rid of all of the equipment I own and work with that emits and EM field!

It's gonna be tough for me to work in IT with an abacus...but by god, I will be healthy!

Sorry, I don't want to convinced anybody, just saying that microwaves are dangerous to everybody. Forget the money/tax/ government/mcdonalds/walfare stuff.
Cheers

Joey Ward

If anybody would like to learn more about Electromagnetic Fields and Microwave there is a good book by B. Black Levitt called Electromagnetic Fields written in 1995 way before cell phones and WiFi took off. Its well the worth the eyeballing.

ZLTFUL

Everything is dangerous in excess. Go drink 10 gallons of water over the next 2 hours and see what happens.

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

So it all boils down to man's desire for a little piece. Money is just our socialistic method of superiority. Women's emotional nature kept us from continuing to beat one another for dominance. Women became more interested in man's ability to provide the basic needs for the children. it's all about reproduction.

Have to disagree pal, more so about the money. Women with low self esteem want men to "take care of them". Give them a certain lifestyle. To some, having a baby insures that. That's why you see so many women throw themselves at sports figures with big money contracts.

Your assertions may be correct, but in a different time period.

Agreed Tony. Now-a-days for most women it's not about reproduction, it's about security, and being safe. If you are having trouble keeping a roof over your head, and food on the table. And if you're lucky enough to have a man with money, that you yourself don't have to work that's a bonus!

But these women with low self esteem are also too stupid to realize that hooking up with some loser and having a kid or two won't enable them to keep the man, he'll simply knock her up and then move on to the next stupid woman who is dumb enough to buy his line!

A good chunk of these women are also lazy a$$ losers who aren't willing to work to provide for themselves. And the men themselves are simply lazy a$$ losers simply looking for a good time and a dumb woman who will be stupid enough to have a little job while he stays unemployed looking for another woman to screw.

Unfortunately, neither of these two types of losers will ever grow up and we all end up paying for them with our taxes going for their Medicare/Medicaid/welfare payments.

Why Cathy, I'm shocked at your perspective. lol Seriously, it's refreshing to hear this from a woman.
A lot of these woman who have babies simply do so for child support money which most never do receive thus the welfare. The combination of welfare and little child support coin enables them to stay home, not work, watch Oprah and play on Facebook all day. Then they find another chump....start the process all over and before you know it they have 4 kids all from different fathers. You can argue that this isn't the norm, but I'd disagree as I see it way too often.

Also, some of these women grew up gorgeous, thinking their looks alone will carry them. Kinda like a beautifully wrapped Christmas present with an empty box inside. Yet society breeds these women like a commodity. When they realize men will only want to use that good looking empty box as a pin cushion, then they adopt the "have a baby" mentality to lock a man down.....and his wallet. Sadly enough, too many men fall into that spider web.

Open up any womans magazine, and mens for that matter, and all you see is stuff about looks. You have to look a certain way or your a loser. Never do they talk about education, career paths, it's all about converting yourself into that nicely wrapped empty box. Sad really, because many young teens are given the impression that beauty on the outside is what every man wants....the only thing that matters. Add to that the next thing promoted in these magazines....becoming the sexual animal supposedly hidden inside.

Personally, I've seen over the years a steady drop in self esteem among woman of all ages. Call it a lack of education, a society that breeds these symptoms, social media, I dunno....can't put my finger on just one bad apple. To me though, our society and culture seems to be degrading at a pretty good clip.

tonyb

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Everything is dangerous in excess. Go drink 10 gallons of water over the next 2 hours and see what happens.

I can tell you what would happen to me.....I'd pee like a race horse.

Tell ya what though, I get tired of every week something new becomes bad for you. Hello, everything is bad for you if abused or done in excess...DUH !! Eggs were bad for you, now their good. Butter was bad, now it's good. Dairy was good for you, now it's bad. Alcohol was bad, now it's good...in small amounts anyway....AND we wonder why people are so confused ?

It isn't rocket science, the closer you get to eating whole foods that came out of the earth, the better. Whole foods that haven't been manipulated, added to, taken away from, or preserved and radiated to last 20 years on a shelf.

You can buy a house under high voltage power lines, keep your ear glued to that cell phone every waking hour and visually look at wi-fi streams the whole day. Actions have consequences, for the positive or negative. Trick is balancing it all out as it's become nearly impossible to avoid everything that's supposedly bad for us.

People in general don't know how to balance their lives though. They were never taught that, never a reason to before, that they knew of anyway. The free flow of information has become the proverbial double edged sword, too much info. Enough though to scare people into acting a certain way, living a certain way, spending money a certain way. OOPS, spending money a certain way.....there's your ticket.

cfrizz

tonyb wrote: »

cfrizz wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

Why Cathy, I'm shocked at your perspective. lol Seriously, it's refreshing to hear this from a woman.
A lot of these woman who have babies simply do so for child support money which most never do receive thus the welfare. The combination of welfare and little child support coin enables them to stay home, not work, watch Oprah and play on Facebook all day. Then they find another chump....start the process all over and before you know it they have 4 kids all from different fathers. You can argue that this isn't the norm, but I'd disagree as I see it way too often.

Also, some of these women grew up gorgeous, thinking their looks alone will carry them. Kinda like a beautifully wrapped Christmas present with an empty box inside. Yet society breeds these women like a commodity. When they realize men will only want to use that good looking empty box as a pin cushion, then they adopt the "have a baby" mentality to lock a man down.....and his wallet. Sadly enough, too many men fall into that spider web.

Open up any womans magazine, and mens for that matter, and all you see is stuff about looks. You have to look a certain way or your a loser. Never do they talk about education, career paths, it's all about converting yourself into that nicely wrapped empty box. Sad really, because many young teens are given the impression that beauty on the outside is what every man wants....the only thing that matters. Add to that the next thing promoted in these magazines....becoming the sexual animal supposedly hidden inside.

Personally, I've seen over the years a steady drop in self esteem among woman of all ages. Call it a lack of education, a society that breeds these symptoms, social media, I dunno....can't put my finger on just one bad apple. To me though, our society and culture seems to be degrading at a pretty good clip.

I also see it way too often, but what gets me is these dumb idiots haven't even bothered to look around to see that these men won't let themselves be tied down, they will just go on to the next dumb woman.

So are you exonerating these men who chose the Barbie dolls exactly for their looks knowing they would drop them at the first opportunity when a baby is mentioned?

Agreed, but then why don't men ever grow out of that mentality which is quite evident on this board with the Post a picture any picture thread? Every last one of you keeps perpetuating that ideal!

If society is going to change, it has to begin with each and every individual changing how they look at these things and how they pass core values on to their children/grandchildren both men and women.

You can't have it both ways. Encouraging your sons to only look at the outside package, and to get as much of it as you can then move on to the next, but then want them to settle down and marry a good little girl, but then come on here to drool over some pics in a thread, or get something else on the side.

Women have to stop teaching their girls that their only value in life are their looks and having a man.

tonyb

Good points Cathy, but men...and women are always going to oogle over pics. Looking and touching/doing are 2 very different things.

As a father of 2 girls, grandfather of 4 boys....you raise both to have respect for the opposite sexes and try to inform both of the pitfalls of what to expect at certain ages.

Even when I was young, kids behaved a certain way at home, and another way out with friends. Your neighborhood friends then was the equivalent of social media today. A lot more outside influences being thrown at kids today. Influences that you as a parent have limited control over. Even school, as a parent your limited as to what gets taught to your child. Wasn't an issue when I was young as the teachings focused mainly on the basics of learning. Today it's a whole new world, scary world at that for our school systems.

In my opinion Cath, comes down to culture. What kind of culture, as a country, do we wish to portray ? What culture, or part of, is worth saving or tossing out the window ?

Sure, cultures change, evolve....but most keep a basis of whats really important to it. We have yet to identify what is really important in our culture. Which to me is obvious as every part of it is being chipped away at, with hardly a yawn in opposition.

mhardy6647

There is risk associated with essentially every thing we do -- the big problem today, IMO, is that the relative risks of different activities (or exposures) aren't well understood. Realistically, any individual incurs far more risk of death by getting into a car and driving to work than, e.g., jamming a cell phone up against his or her head for six hours a day. We accept the risk of driving to work, I guess, because someone pays us to do it.

This table is from a Boston Globe article some years back on the subject.

Dangerousness relative risks of activities by mhardy6647, on Flickr

For example -- if you ride a motorcycle -- you really don't need to worry too much about using a cell phone or WiFi.

tonyb

Good points, but your associating one thing against another. Thing with a lot of these smaller risks is we accumulate them. Small risk in 10 different things becomes a much bigger risk overall.

Balance my friend, key to longevity.

mhardy6647

Not of necessity -- but, yes, it all needs to be considered in aggregate. This is what, e.g., the anti-vaccine camp misses; the risks of the diseases far outweigh the risk of the vaccine, even for an individual. For the herd (i.e., all of us!), it's even more lopsided.

The other way to look at it is risk/benefit. The benefit one receives from driving to work outweighs the risk. WiFi and cell phones, etc. can certainly be argued to add more value than the incremental risks that they entail.

It's also probably worth mentioning that the energy "dose" of microwaves (according to Planck's Equation, E = hv) is far, far less than, e.g., X-rays.

Joey Ward

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Not of necessity -- but, yes, it all needs to be considered in aggregate. This is what, e.g., the anti-vaccine camp misses; the risks of the diseases far outweigh the risk of the vaccine, even for an individual. For the herd (i.e., all of us!), it's even more lopsided.

The other way to look at it is risk/benefit. The benefit one receives from driving to work outweighs the risk. WiFi and cell phones, etc. can certainly be argued to add more value than the incremental risks that they entail.

It's also probably worth mentioning that the energy "dose" of microwaves (according to Planck's Equation, E = hv) is far, far less than, e.g., X-rays.

But are you getting x-rays, etc,,, everyday? Microwaves are beaming the whole planet 24/7. Trees, plants, animals and humans are heading for one big train wreck.....All aboard!
Cheers

gudnoyez

Cell Phones and Microwaves, that explains the cauliflower sized growths behind the ear that they tell us we should be walking around with. I hear bacon will kill you and that precooked microwave bacon is probably even worse, face it technology and unhealthy foods is our own worst enemy, yet we all partake.

jeremymarcinko

Yet we are living longer than ever.

Joey Ward

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

Yet we are living longer than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS6FGzh3ygw
Watch this if you have the time
RESONANCE-BEINGS OF FREQUENCY.

CHEERS

mrbigbluelight

mhardy6647 wrote: »

It's also probably worth mentioning that the energy "dose" of microwaves (according to Planck's Equation, E = hv) is far, far less than, e.g., X-rays.

Planck's Equation .,,,, that's the one to use to figure out how many cats are in a box, right ? And if they're dead or alive ? I use that a lot.

There are risks in life, to be sure. We have risks that we can control and we have risks that are under the control of others in whom we have to trust.
IMO, sometimes that trust is misused and/or abused.

Some forms of cervical cancer are caused by a human papillomarvirus (HPV).
There's a definite established connection.
There is a vaccine now available that is designed for HPV. The discussions about this vaccine revolve mainly around "Why should I get my daughter vaccinated at 8 years old, won't that signify that I think that she's going to be a **** ?", ie, mainly around moral or religious grounds,
Which misses the real question that should be asked, "Is this necessary ?".

Not unlike most vaccines, there are some risks involved, known risks: let's call it .0X %.
Not a lot of risk, IMO,
BUT: almost all women will carry the HPV virus at some point in their lives and ALMOST all women's bodies will destroy this virus on their own.
An effective method of dealing with this HPV is to test every couple of years. If signs of HPV are present, then a woman should be tested every 6 months. 85 % of women will display no signs of the HPV virus at that point. The other 15 % are then tested again at 6 months. Of those 15 %, 85 % will have defeated the HPV virus. Those who haven't are then treated with established medical practives to eliminate the threat.
A reasonable person could ask, "Won't this delay in treatment put a woman at higher risk of developing cervical cancer ?".
No. The HPV virus is slooooooowwwwwww,
I have bookmarked on my hone computer the non-tinfoil links for this info. which comes from established medical sources.
It can be "Googled", of course. I'd suggest that you not bother with "SmithKlineGlaxo-Are-Our-Lords-And-Saviors" website, That's just my opinion, though,


Sounds better to me, in my humble opinion, than to REQUIRE all females above the age of 8 to receive the HPV vaccination.
There is a push for this to be REQUIRED for women/young girls,
There are recommendations that this be suggested for men/boys, too,
The one major drawback to this plan (other than KNOWN bad side effects from this vaccination) would be that, with the huge increases in profits, SmithKlineGlaxo, Inc would have to pay more in taxes,

I should mention that neither of my granddaughters will be receiving any HPV vaccinations in the future.
.,,,,, might have them go into lumberjacking, that appears to be safer,

Joey Ward

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

It's also probably worth mentioning that the energy "dose" of microwaves (according to Planck's Equation, E = hv) is far, far less than, e.g., X-rays.

Planck's Equation .,,,, that's the one to use to figure out how many cats are in a box, right ? And if they're dead or alive ? I use that a lot.

There are risks in life, to be sure. We have risks that we can control and we have risks that are under the control of others in whom we have to trust.
IMO, sometimes that trust is misused and/or abused.

Some forms of cervical cancer are caused by a human papillomarvirus (HPV).
There's a definite established connection.
There is a vaccine now available that is designed for HPV. The discussions about this vaccine revolve mainly around "Why should I get my daughter vaccinated at 8 years old, won't that signify that I think that she's going to be a **** ?", ie, mainly around moral or religious grounds,
Which misses the real question that should be asked, "Is this necessary ?".

Not unlike most vaccines, there are some risks involved, known risks: let's call it .0X %.
Not a lot of risk, IMO,
BUT: almost all women will carry the HPV virus at some point in their lives and ALMOST all women's bodies will destroy this virus on their own.
An effective method of dealing with this HPV is to test every couple of years. If signs of HPV are present, then a woman should be tested every 6 months. 85 % of women will display no signs of the HPV virus at that point. The other 15 % are then tested again at 6 months. Of those 15 %, 85 % will have defeated the HPV virus. Those who haven't are then treated with established medical practives to eliminate the threat.
A reasonable person could ask, "Won't this delay in treatment put a woman at higher risk of developing cervical cancer ?".
No. The HPV virus is slooooooowwwwwww,
I have bookmarked on my hone computer the non-tinfoil links for this info. which comes from established medical sources.
It can be "Googled", of course. I'd suggest that you not bother with "SmithKlineGlaxo-Are-Our-Lords-And-Saviors" website, That's just my opinion, though,


Sounds better to me, in my humble opinion, than to REQUIRE all females above the age of 8 to receive the HPV vaccination.
There is a push for this to be REQUIRED for women/young girls,
There are recommendations that this be suggested for men/boys, too,
The one major drawback to this plan (other than KNOWN bad side effects from this vaccination) would be that, with the huge increases in profits, SmithKlineGlaxo, Inc would have to pay more in taxes,

I should mention that neither of my granddaughters will be receiving any HPV vaccinations in the future.
.,,,,, might have them go into lumberjacking, that appears to be safer,

Good post.