SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[old.user4556]

Jeez.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...sucked-into-the-aircraft-engine/1/549559.html

 

[Gwadien]

I hope he rots.

Rots hard.

 

[Raven]

Who?

 

[Gwadien]

That dude http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35120668

 

[Gwadien]

Oh by the way.

One of my housemates moved out, and my lardlord/lady are looking for people tor replace.

Landlady rang me today and said she has the option between a Brazilian girl or a Indian boy.

Hmmm.

 

[Raven]

Indian boy, think of the lawn?!

 

[old.user4556]

Probably got a better chance with an Indian Boy than the Brazilian Girl tbh.

Any hole's a goal.

 

[CorNokZ]

That dude http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35120668

Shit, this wigga just bought the Wu-Tang limited edition double album! Limited as in, there is only one copy! If he goes to the slammer and the government seizes all his assets, hopefully it'll get released.. Otherwise it is not allowed to be played to the public before 2136 or something crazy like that

 

[Vae]

Shit, this wigga just bought the Wu-Tang limited edition double album! Limited as in, there is only one copy! If he goes to the slammer and the government seizes all his assets, hopefully it'll get released.. Otherwise it is not allowed to be played to the public before 2136 or something crazy like that

Or we may get to see Bill Murray and the Wu-Tang clan perform a heist to steal it back...

 

[Lakih]

Football or Star Wars?

And just so I blow my own trumpet the requisite amount to be called a cock:
View attachment 29783

9/10 Because I know my StarWars... I just need to pay a little more attention when C3PO goes deep.

 

[Gwadien]

Indian boy, think of the lawn?!

Don't have a lawn :3

 

[Moriath]

But you have a flat mate who could use a trim

 

[Job]

Someone'll probably call me preachy for posting this, but it is interesting.

What a load of hippy boloks...environment..chemicals...blah..blah ..blah

 

[Raven]

That artical is nearly as interesting as the one a couple of months back that said it was mostly bad luck.

 

[Job]

Yes because no one got cancer before chemicals..smog and the discovery of radiation.

 

[Scouse]

Kinda expected that reaction to a study that just says "yeah, cancer's a thing but you massively increase your risk if you live certain ways".

It seems people just don't like informed choice - or rather being informed that they're making a choice. For example, I know the level of drinking I participate in at weekends is a poor choice in terms of cancer but I still choose it. But it's the only poor choice I take lifestyle wise, so in general when I read that article and look at what I get up to I feel pretty good.

I guess you two dislike that article because it tells you that what you're doing tilts the cancer scales in your direction.

Hey, maybe I'll get it and you two won't. One in three of us will get it at some point in our lives...

 

[Gwadien]

Yes because no one got cancer before chemicals..smog and the discovery of radiation.

Noone got cancer on the scale which we do now and there weren't many cases prior to the industrial revolution

 

[Vae]

Noone got cancer on the scale which we do now and there weren't many cases prior to the industrial revolution

And how much of that is down to the fact that life expectancy was lower so people died of other causes earlier before cancer would have been a factor. Also how could cancer have been identified at that time...

 

[Gwadien]

And how much of that is down to the fact that life expectancy was lower so people died of other causes earlier before cancer would have been a factor. Also how could cancer have been identified at that time...

You still get cancer as a kid..

Sure there was lots of undiagnosed cases, but to say that cancer is down to back luck is pretty ridiculous.

I could promise you that you have more chance of getting cancer in London than you do in say Devon, is that just luck or?

 

[Scouse]

but to say that cancer is down to back luck is pretty ridiculous.

Yep - even the study that Raven was on about that said it was down to bad luck didn't actually say that at all. Because it isn't.

 

[Urgat]

And how much of that is down to the fact that life expectancy was lower so people died of other causes earlier before cancer would have been a factor. Also how could cancer have been identified at that time...

Life expectancy was historically lower due to higher infant mortality bringing the average down... Not because people lived shorter lives.

 

[Gwadien]

Life expectancy was historically lower due to higher infant mortality bringing the average down... Not because people lived shorter lives.

True and not true, if you lived in towns you would die younger if you were rich you'd live much longer etc..

Done a fair bit of work on this recently, its interesting to say the least - public conceptions of 'life' in the early modern period specifically are pretty incorrect

 

[Gwadien]

I suppose the irony here is asking why didn't they move away from places with low mortality?

Because religious people told them it was their time up, although there were philanthropists who did try to highlight what was killing them I guess its hard to ignore the money so they'd rather just play ignorant and just pretend its gods doing.

Reminds me of people passing obvious stuff such as cancer being environmental as 'hippy shit' xD

 

[Bodhi]

Kinda expected that reaction to a study that just says "yeah, cancer's a thing but you massively increase your risk if you live certain ways".

It seems people just don't like informed choice - or rather being informed that they're making a choice. For example, I know the level of drinking I participate in at weekends is a poor choice in terms of cancer but I still choose it. But it's the only poor choice I take lifestyle wise, so in general when I read that article and look at what I get up to I feel pretty good.

I guess you two dislike that article because it tells you that what you're doing tilts the cancer scales in your direction.

Hey, maybe I'll get it and you two won't. One in three of us will get it at some point in our lives...

So if I've already had it does that mean you guys are safe? As I had a tumour taken out of my bladder about 12 years ago - not that I knew anything about having it at the time.

However the checkups I had since then, with a camera up the japseye, were the most traumatic thing I have been through. It wasn't the camera that bothered me - it was the tripod and boom mike that smarted.

Anyway, I'm off for a cig!

 

[DaGaffer]

Yes because no one got cancer before chemicals..smog and the discovery of radiation.

Its difficult to analyse because of differences in diagnosis and record keeping, but I'm more than prepared to believe environmental factors play a big part in cancer incidence. Of course there are genetic predispositions to certain cancers, but that doesn't mean environment doesn't act as a trigger. In the case of my father, he worked in the oil industry for 30 years, died of cancer relatively young (66) and an alarming number of people he worked with also died young, a surprising number didn't even get to retirement age. So yeah, environment is a thing.

 

[Moriath]

My dad died at 52. He never smoked. Didnt drink much. Was a policeman so fairly fit. And he got oesophagial cancer diagnosed a year after he retired.

 

[Scouse]

That's harsh @Moriath.

However, statistically speaking that's relatively meaningless.



Edit: This is what NHS has to say about Oesophageal Cance.

Smoking and drinking alcohol are two of the biggest risk factors for oesophageal cancer, particularly if both activities are combined. People who drink heavily but do not smoke are four times more likely to develop oesophageal cancer than non-drinkers, and people who smoke and do not drink alcohol are twice as likely to develop oesophageal cancer.

However, people who smoke and drink heavily (more than 30 units a week) are eight times more likely to develop oesophageal cancer than those who do not smoke or drink.

Clearly environmental...

 

[Raven]

Yep - even the study that Raven was on about that said it was down to bad luck didn't actually say that at all. Because it isn't.

Hey, I don't care one way or the other. I will be happy to Cark it in my 60s, better that than having to have your arse wiped for you.

My point was that you have latched onto one study out of however many there are and because it fits your opinion it is now omgprovenscientificfactomg

 

[Tom]

There's an element of truth to saying that cancer is down to bad luck. There's always a reason why someone gets cancer while another doesn't, and environmental conditions plays a big part in that outcome. What is it that makes one cosmic ray damage the DNA of one person, while the same cosmic ray does no damage to another? If you had enough information you could probably predict how this would happen, but that's so impractical that it's more useful to put it down to luck. So to avoid bad luck, you wear sunblock.

When all's said and done, if you want to avoid cancer you know what to do. Don't breathe smoke, any smoke; smoke particles are harmful. Don't drink too much. Eat the right stuff. Keep your body healthy. Keep out of bright sunlight.

And don't live too long.

 

[Calo]

Well everyone will eventually get Cancer, most people are just dead by other things long before that.