Comments on: The Radioactive Ciggy http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:33:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: OtW - February 07 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-176891 OtW - February 07 Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:12:39 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-176891 [...] artist Ron Muecks hyper-realistic sculptures. Smoking kills . . . …because it’s radioactive from fertilisers . Yngwie Malmsteen “The only restrictions for submission to this Art page are that the images [...] […] artist Ron Muecks hyper-realistic sculptures. Smoking kills . . . …because it’s radioactive from fertilisers . Yngwie Malmsteen “The only restrictions for submission to this Art page are that the images […]

]]> By: markbradshaw.net » Smoking kills . . . http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-172217 markbradshaw.net » Smoking kills . . . Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:30:03 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-172217 [...] it’s radioactive from fertilisers [...] […] it’s radioactive from fertilisers […]

]]> By: havegheewilltravel http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-42170 havegheewilltravel Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:12:24 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-42170 http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=flat+earth++myth&meta= i have my bets hedged on the Tibetan Sun view More recently popularised by Schauberger ~poster formerly known as anonymous http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=flat+earth++myth&meta=

i have my bets hedged on the Tibetan Sun view More recently popularised by Schauberger
~poster formerly known as anonymous

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-41748 Jason Godesky Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:14:52 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-41748 Besides the modern incarnations that Chuck mentions, ancient beliefs in a flat earth were quite common. The roundness of the earth was first established by Eratosthenes, a third century BCE Hellenistic mathematician who also calculated the earth's circumference to within 318 km of its actual size. While the idea of a flat earth was not nearly as prevalent as Andrew Dickson White's <em>The Warfare of Science with Theology</em> made it out to be, it's equally untrue to say that "no one ever believed the earth was flat." Many people believed, and some <em>still</em> believe, that the earth is flat. Unfortunately, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a frequent source of such "truish" misinformation. Besides the modern incarnations that Chuck mentions, ancient beliefs in a flat earth were quite common. The roundness of the earth was first established by Eratosthenes, a third century BCE Hellenistic mathematician who also calculated the earth’s circumference to within 318 km of its actual size. While the idea of a flat earth was not nearly as prevalent as Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology made it out to be, it’s equally untrue to say that “no one ever believed the earth was flat.” Many people believed, and some still believe, that the earth is flat. Unfortunately, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a frequent source of such “truish” misinformation.

]]> By: Chuck http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-41665 Chuck Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:53:50 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-41665 I dunno, Anonymous. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ - Chuck I dunno, Anonymous.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

- Chuck

]]> By: Anonymous http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-41636 Anonymous Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:16:38 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-41636 no one ever believed the earth was flat . You can verify this quite easily yourself. Theres also a good article on the mises site re scientism no one ever believed the earth was flat . You can verify this quite easily yourself.
Theres also a good article on the mises site re scientism

]]> By: ceremonial http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22376 ceremonial Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:45:39 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22376 the big difference between native american use of tobacco and western culture's is quantity. ceremonial use of tobacco is not going to lead to cancer, but if you smoke a pack a day you definitively will get cancer, even if you smoke natural american spirits. most people smoke because they are stressed out and a cigarette gives them a break or something to do when they are around people. but modern civilised life is so full of stress that you have to smoke often, then you get addicted and smoke all the time. suddenly you've got one more thing to get stressed out about. the big difference between native american use of tobacco and western culture’s is quantity. ceremonial use of tobacco is not going to lead to cancer, but if you smoke a pack a day you definitively will get cancer, even if you smoke natural american spirits.

most people smoke because they are stressed out and a cigarette gives them a break or something to do when they are around people. but modern civilised life is so full of stress that you have to smoke often, then you get addicted and smoke all the time. suddenly you’ve got one more thing to get stressed out about.

]]> By: pygmy http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22245 pygmy Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:57:31 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22245 The point about the assholes being wrong a million times is not that they shouldn't practice science, it's that they should practice science with humility. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE MEASURED. Assholes have no humility about their present assertions. That includes end-of-the- world fright geeks, entreprenuers and beggars like Savinar and Prieur. They haven't become better people with their so-called knowledge, correlative or causitive. Scientist's are assholes if they think they have absolute proof of anything (for the most part). Face it geeky guys, everything is a total fucking mystery and all our knowledge is ultimately speculative. Life is a case by case basis. Everything old is made new again. Miracles are everywhere. Almost everything science knows was known before somewhere at some point, without science. Still the masses live in ignorance. Practice science, just don't be an asshole about it. Say "it seems to be that..." "....it usually happens that....." Science is a method not a position. Science is a method not a weapon. The smug asshole with the arithmetic doesn't know what the future holds because he can read a chart off the page. But I'd rather have a beer with him than the Boulder Ad Council chairwoman. We are not reindeer. We have 1/3 lizard brains, but we are not reindeer. Good planning, but you will still need good luck. The point about the assholes being wrong a million times is not that they shouldn’t practice science, it’s that they should practice science with humility. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE MEASURED. Assholes have no humility about their present assertions. That includes end-of-the- world fright geeks, entreprenuers and beggars like Savinar and Prieur. They haven’t become better people with their so-called knowledge, correlative or causitive. Scientist’s are assholes if they think they have absolute proof of anything (for the most part). Face it geeky guys, everything is a total fucking mystery and all our knowledge is ultimately speculative. Life is a case by case basis. Everything old is made new again. Miracles are everywhere. Almost everything science knows was known before somewhere at some point, without science. Still the masses live in ignorance. Practice science, just don’t be an asshole about it. Say “it seems to be that…” “….it usually happens that…..” Science is a method not a position. Science is a method not a weapon. The smug asshole with the arithmetic doesn’t know what the future holds because he can read a chart off the page. But I’d rather have a beer with him than the Boulder Ad Council chairwoman. We are not reindeer. We have 1/3 lizard brains, but we are not reindeer. Good planning, but you will still need good luck.

]]> By: truekaiser http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22077 truekaiser Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:55:04 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22077 "Kaiser, I thought you might mention that, but a refuting study does not change or diminish the arguments, logical or evidence in the original study: it merely highlights the weaknesses that were already there, if you could notice them." a properly done one does diminish the previous studies. we rarely get things right the first time so it's a good idea to leave a little bit open just in case. i asked for more recent info because when i see 20-40 year old information it throws up a red flag if it doesn't have following more recent information confirming it. the key is of course if the new study test has evidence that is valid and enough of it to prove the older test wrong. this is the process of science, new discovery's or testing methods might prove what the previous methods and ideas wrong and force them to change. “Kaiser, I thought you might mention that, but a refuting study does not change or diminish the arguments, logical or evidence in the original study: it merely highlights the weaknesses that were already there, if you could notice them.”

a properly done one does diminish the previous studies. we rarely get things right the first time so it’s a good idea to leave a little bit open just in case. i asked for more recent info because when i see 20-40 year old information it throws up a red flag if it doesn’t have following more recent information confirming it.
the key is of course if the new study test has evidence that is valid and enough of it to prove the older test wrong.
this is the process of science, new discovery’s or testing methods might prove what the previous methods and ideas wrong and force them to change.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22022 Jason Godesky Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:21:11 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-radioactive-ciggy/#comment-22022 Dude, you're right, cancer in general comes from many sources. Though, as we discussed in <a href="http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-21-civilization-makes-us-sick/" rel="nofollow">thesis #21</a> probably the biggest single factor is <em>bread</em>. Kaiser, I thought you might mention that, but a refuting study does not change or diminish the arguments, logical or evidence in the original study: it merely highlights the weaknesses that were already there, if you could notice them. Cody, American Spirit makes no claims about its organic cigarettes being healthier. I looked for some comparison statistics, but couldn't find any, and given the way that so many "organic" providers try to cheat the spirit of the regulation and still get the label, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not they're <em>actually</em> grown without phosphate fertilizers. Dude, you’re right, cancer in general comes from many sources. Though, as we discussed in thesis #21 probably the biggest single factor is bread.

Kaiser, I thought you might mention that, but a refuting study does not change or diminish the arguments, logical or evidence in the original study: it merely highlights the weaknesses that were already there, if you could notice them.

Cody, American Spirit makes no claims about its organic cigarettes being healthier. I looked for some comparison statistics, but couldn’t find any, and given the way that so many “organic” providers try to cheat the spirit of the regulation and still get the label, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether or not they’re actually grown without phosphate fertilizers.

]]>