Breast Cancer

[Dragon]

Hey guys, you might want to read this. I retyped it, it's an article on Breast Cancer that my mom found. (I orginially posted it at another forum I go to because it was brought up. I'm doing it here to get the word out.)

"Subject: Dioxins

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in their newsletters.

This information is being by WalterReedArmyMedicalCenter.

Dioxin Carcinogens cause cancer. Especially breast cancer. Don't freeze plastic water bottles with water in them as this also releases dioxin from the plastic. Dr. Edward Fujimoto from Castle hospital was on a TV program explaining this health hazard. (He is the manager of the Wellness Program at the Hospital.) He was talking about dioxins and how bad they are for us.

He said we should not heat our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This applies particuarily to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Dioxin are carcenogens and are highly toxic to the cells of our bodies. Instead, he reccomends using glass, Corning Ware, or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results... without the dioxin.

So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen, and soups, ect., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, ect.

Remember when some of the fast food resturaunts moved away from the foam containers to paper? The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.

To add to this: Saran wrap placed over foods as they are nuked, with the high heat, actually drips poisonious toxins into the food, use paper towels instead.

Please pass this on to your family & friends, & those who are important in your life."

Alot of this stuff I didn't even know about, I used to freeze my water bottle each day so it's be cold all the next day, now I just put ice cubes in it. I hope this helps you guys, oh, and it'd be greatly appreaciated if you copied and pasted the artical above in emails and send them to people you know to get the word around.

[Lazo]

Hold it right there.

This does not seem to be the case.

(excerpt from an article on Junkscience.com)

The U.S. sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange to defoliate the Vietnam jungle during 1961-1971. Agent Orange contained low levels of substances called dioxins, by-products formed during the manufacturing process.

Agent Orange became a cause célèbre for Vietnam veterans after studies reported that dioxin caused cancer in some laboratory animal tests.

The media soon labeled dioxin as the "most toxic manmade chemical."

Environmental activists climbed aboard the dioxin railroad when they learned that low levels of dioxin were produced by many industrial processes. (Dioxin is also a by-product of natural processes such as volcanic eruptions, forest fires and any combustion of plant material.)

Though no study of dioxin-exposed humans (including Vietnam vets) credibly links dioxin with cancer and the only reason Vietnam vets are compensated for Agent Orange exposure is that politicians find it easier to pay-off rather than to fight veterans groups, Agent Orange hysteria is more readily debunked courtesy of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

Several years ago Ben & Jerry’s endeavored to do what it could to rid the world of the dreaded dioxin because, as proclaimed in its marketing materials, "The only safe level of dioxin exposure is no exposure at all.

Knowing everyone is exposed unavoidably to dioxin everyday in our food, water and air, Agent Orange expert Dr. Michael Gough and I tested Ben & Jerry’s ice cream for dioxin.

Our tests found a single serving of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream contained 2,000 times the amount of dioxin the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is "safe" for an adult. For a 45-pound child, the figure is about 7,500 times more than the EPA says is safe.

The level of dioxin measured in our Ben & Jerry’s sample is likely greater than dioxin exposures from Agent Orange among U.S. ground troops in Vietnam.

And who’s afraid of Ben & Jerry’s?

Vietnam veterans groups and environmental activists, though, have so much invested in the dioxin myth that they can’t let go.

Failing to find dioxin-related effects in Vietnam vets, these groups have urged researchers to look for harm supposedly caused by Agent Orange among Vietnamese civilians. Sadly, the Vietnamese government seems quite happy to trot out alleged victims, hoping eventually to receive reparations from U.S. taxpayers.

[joshi]

You both have good facts, but I seriously don't know who to believe!

[Toshi]

Hmmm...two good facts, but which to believe...?

It looks like i'll have to stop freezing my water bottles! XD

[boomiester]

If I remember correctly the one about freezing water bottles is false.

[Dragon]

Huh, this is a pretty interesting topic. What do you guys think, should I write to Dear Abby about it? She might know, she does answer alot of other peoples' questions.

[Soul]

Grrrrrr....



www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1536921,00.asp

Wise words from Dvorak.

[joshi]

Yoshi said:

Grrrrrr....



www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1536921,00.asp

Wise words from Dvorak.

This is true in most cases. Try searching different websites for the same information, the results would most likely come out differently. It's a good experiment that'll prove that theory, teachers and other curious people have used it all the time.

[Lazo]

Wise words eh? Dvorak takes the idea that "you can't believe everything you read," splices it with "people spin things to get the results they want" and stretches it into 11 paragraphs. I can do that, and I don't think many consider me wise...

He also implies that there is no way to tell the difference between reliable and sham sources, implies that there is little to no truth...

You can evaluate it yourself. Couple o' questions to ask yourself:

R) Are the sources for any factual informatin clearly listed so they can be verified in another source?
W) Is it free from errors? [grammer/spelling]
Q) With statistics, is it clearly presented, easy to read and relevant?
E)Is the author indicated? Is the author the original creator? Are the author's qualifications clearly stated?
X) WHO IS SPONSORING THE SITE, and, is there a way to verify the sponsors?

...There are more, if you want me to continue.

[joshi]

What do the letters represent (the RWQE thingies)?

[Kailing]

Breast Cancer is just one of those things that happen, and by the sounds of things, in this day and age, everything causes cancer.

Or so those idiot researchers say. I wouldn't believe a word that flies out of their mouths - All of our great grandparents, so on and so forth used to use far more dangerous chemicals and what not back in there time - And most of them lived to the good old ages, without anything wrong with them.

My familyline never had an issue with breast cancer, no such thing exsisted, until five years ago, when my mother was diagnosed with having cancer.

Let's just say that it was a shock us. She didn't smoke, drink, play around with chemicals. It just showed up on her over time.

Needless to say, our doctor was an ass and told her that it was a cyst.

I dunno. That didn't sit well with mum. She knew that there was something wrong with her body, so she got a second opinion.

It was a categorized cancer.

I'm not going to write anymore about it, none of you guys really need to hear about my family's history. But, it does irk me when researchers "discover" something, and cry;

"OMFG!!!11 This causes cancer/mental problems, rar rar rar."

Makes you wonder where the world is heading, ne? ^_^

[Dragon]

You have a really good point there. Like when people thought everything revolved around the Earth. ... That's not a very good comparison, is it?

[Lazo]

The RWQEX thing was an ordered list, like 12345 or ABCDE. RWQEX is how the ballots were arranged when... (this never gets easy)... Ahnuld Schwahzuneggah became the Governator of California.

Flat Earth doesn't quite fit. It's more like... how Swedish scientists told us in April 2002 that baking and frying high-carbohydrate foods, like potatoes and bread, formed acrylamide, a substance that has been linked with cancer in laboratory animal experiments.

The WHO (World Health Orginization) held an "urgent" meeting where acrylamide was called a "major concern."

What they didn’t say was that even if lab animal experiments were a good predictor of cancer risk in humans -- an obscene leap of faith -- someone of average bodyweight would have to eat 35,000 potato chips (about 62.5 pounds) per day for life to get an equivalent dose of acrylamide as the lab animals.

The list of things like this goes on and on- DDT, Soda, Fruit Juice, Atrezine, Alar... even water!

[Soul]

Dvorak takes the idea that "you can't believe everything you read," splices it with... and stretches it into 11 paragraphs. I can do that

Don't make me laugh.

Knowledge comes from experience. Experience comes from time. Therefore, the more time you've been through, the more experience you have, and the more knowledge you have. So don't think you've seen it all... you're far from it. Far, far...

You can evaluate it yourself. Couple o' questions to ask yourself:

R) Are the sources for any factual informatin clearly listed so they can be verified in another source?
W) Is it free from errors? [grammer/spelling]
Q) With statistics, is it clearly presented, easy to read and relevant?
E)Is the author indicated? Is the author the original creator? Are the author's qualifications clearly stated?
X) WHO IS SPONSORING THE SITE, and, is there a way to verify the sponsors?

...There are more, if you want me to continue.

Which proves that you can be easily manipulated. Just run the Dioxin articles through these and you'll see that they come out with flying colors. And they are still not true.

[Lazo]

Where did the idea that I believe I have seen it all come from? It’s just not there; The Straw Man Tactic does not work anymore.

Taking two statements with deep meanings and stretching them out isn’t that hard. Take “Being,” for instance. Explaining Being takes tens of thousands of words or more. “Death” is the same, and, splicing them makes for a lengthy (and impressive looking) essay. In Dvorak’s case, the spliced essay covers the basic idea on the reasons for and execution of Deception, or, Deception on the internet. In 11 paragraphs. Awareness of deception should be common knowledge.

There’s more to the sponsor aspect then just to find it. Look into the sponsor- Why was it uploaded in the first place? Does the sponsor have anything to gain with deception? If so, then what and how much? Enough to make it worth deception? If there are enough gains to make it worth deception, then how much deception? Enough to flat-out lie?

…There are more, if you want me to continue.

[Soul]

Lazoshi said:

Where did the idea that I believe I have seen it all come from? It’s just not there; The Straw Man Tactic does not work anymore.

Taking two statements with deep meanings and stretching them out isn’t that hard. Take “Being,” for instance. Explaining Being takes tens of thousands of words or more. “Death” is the same, and, splicing them makes for a lengthy (and impressive looking) essay. In Dvorak’s case, the spliced essay covers the basic idea on the reasons for and execution of Deception, or, Deception on the internet. In 11 paragraphs. Awareness of deception should be common knowledge.

There’s more to the sponsor aspect then just to find it. Look into the sponsor- Why was it uploaded in the first place? Does the sponsor have anything to gain with deception? If so, then what and how much? Enough to make it worth deception? If there are enough gains to make it worth deception, then how much deception? Enough to flat-out lie?

…There are more, if you want me to continue.

You're just a self-righteous lad who thinks he knows everything. That's your problem. You actually think you have the authority to discredit Dvorak even though he has SO MANY more years worth of experience than you. You think you're giving solid support of what you're saying, but all you're doing is babbling things without even fully understanding what you're talking about. You're just repeating things that you've been taught but that you have never tried, so how can you dare suggest Dvorak is easy to match? Dvorak is the most admired columnist at PCmagazine.com, and you dare say you know more than him, even though he's lived probably 3x longer than you? Simply ridiculous. I strongly suggest you stop, before other people notice...

I'm not saying this based only on the age difference. What you said may make a lot of sense to you, but it is nonsense to me. Do not try to argue with me further about Dvorak, because I'm warning you, there is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me think you know more than him in anything he does.

Why was it uploaded in the first place? Does the sponsor have anything to gain with deception? If so, then what and how much? Enough to make it worth deception? If there are enough gains to make it worth deception, then how much deception? Enough to flat-out lie?

Please give a detailed explanation about how I can find this out. A good, effective explanation that will actually work on the internet. Asking the author is obviously out of the question, for obvious reasons.

...See how your suggestions are useless & impossible to follow? Don't waste your time trying to tell me how it's supposed to be done, instead tell me exactly how it CAN be done.

[Lazo]

<sup>You type self-righteous, I type condescending… In any case, your first paragraph is trying to make this personal. It’s very distracting.

Taken altogether, it’s more like “I do not need an 11 paragraph essay by a respected author to understand that the world is and always has been full of deception.” I typed that I can take two concepts and stretch them (Mockery style. I tend to do that when I think others are condescending to me.). Note that this does not necessarily mean I can do it as well as Dvorak. This isn’t the point- that’s why it’s in superscript format.</sup>

How about an example with the group who apparently sent out this mess in the first place- Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Remember that fact checking can be long and exhausting work. I’ll give you the play-by-play.

First, what’s the Walter Reed Army Medical Center all about? Well, look at the vision and mission statement.

Now, to find out where they support this information, and maybe why it was linked up.

Hmmm… this dioxin information was checked to make sure it was recent, right? This dioxin article does not seem to be their archives. In fact, NO dioxin articles appear in their archives. Check it for yourself, it you must.

Alright, fine. Johns Hopkins University, then.

What’s this? Johns Hopkins University tells us that it’s all false! They even reference this “article” directly!

Our sources have been fabricated.

So, if it’s not Johns Hopkins University and it’s not the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, then what is the real source? I have no earthly idea. An anonymous source, making wild claims with only vague descriptions of how it happens (some of it apparently violating basic laws of chemistry, and, undermining the FDA) cannot be trusted.

I don’t need an essay to know that.

[Soul]

In any case, your first paragraph is trying to make this personal. It’s very distracting.

That's what you get for saying so boastfully that you knew more than a person who I hold in high regard. You should know that I find people that use boastful showiness to be extremely annoying. I mentioned Dvorak, and then suddenly you came along and said that you could easily out-do him. I mean, what can you know?! Obviously nothing. Your words don't impress me. Mind me giving you a tip? NEVER discredit other people, especially if they have followers. It's for your own good.

Sheesh!

[Lazo]

Should I? I don't know you, and it's not mentioned in the "get to know the staff members" section.

Nevertheless, I will keep this mind.

^{Others probably should have understood this by now, but it couldn't hurt to type it anyway, now could it?}
The Cancer article at the start of this thread is false.

It is not supported by the two sources it cites (one of them even debunks this thing). Without them, it's worthless. Ignore it.