site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

reply to Marduk

Re: Get your tinfoil hats out!

Lol murdok. Your subtle but effective comeback made me really laugh out loud.


neowulf

join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL

How exactly is that a come back?

"Certain types of radiation (Ionizing for example) can bring about mutations, also mutations do not necessary result in cancer."

Is a true statement. Ionizing, such as X-Ray can cause a mutation, but does not mean it will turn into cancer. This happens everyday. You are in the sun, UV rays hit your skin, which alters your DNA causing a mutation, cancer, but DNA is self-repairing and is generally able to correct the damage done by the sun before the cancer is able to replicate causing the cancer to grow. So already he is agreeing that radiation does cause mutations. But it does not mean all radiation causes a mutation, not all radiation is equal in terms of how dangerous they are to cause DNA mutation.

Non-ionizing radiation, such as radio-frequency energy or microwave radiation would have trouble causing a mutation, the wave length is far too broad. It would require so much direct energy to cause a mutation with non-ionizing radiation that before mutation could take place the cell would die of from over exposure to heat energy output. So technically it is impossible to cause a mutation from non-ionizing radiation such as a cell tower.

Having your crops out in the sun with UV rays is much more likely to cause the mutation that this farmer is worried about.



Marduk

join:2004-09-05
West Chester, PA

reply to sonicmerlin
People just like to argue. It's just ridiculous.


bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

It isn't that, really: Rather, people simply want an unrebutted platform for their own personal perspective. Some folks clearly cannot accept the fact that there isn't any definitive evidence that shows that the garlic absolutely and positively won't be adversely affected. They want to claim that everything is perfectly safe, that is up until the damage is already done, and then they'll take the side of "the farmer should have known". Essentially, they just want to blame others for everything that they don't like, instead of accepting reality.

Personally, I believe the risks are low enough that I think the farmer should allow it, but that's easy for me to say. I'm not the one that morons would come after with pitchforks if something bad happens to a young child who ate a lot of garlic and mob mentality takes over.


Sunday, 03-Jun 07:16:22 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics