Anything is "possible". If that's your only criteria by which you evaluate things then you must be a very nervous person.
Last edited:
Chavez jumps the shark
- Thread starter Graham2001
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cancer hugo chavez
Anything is "possible". If that's your only criteria by which you evaluate things then you must be a very nervous person.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Snipers are very real.
There is a possibily that one is pointing a gun at your head at this very moment, with orders to shoot when you click on "Reply".
Now let's see if you truly believe that something is worth considering if only it is possible...
egarcia1970
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4
Hello folks.
Newbie to the JREF forums here. I'm from Argentina, one of the countries whose president was supposedly targeted by the "cancer ray" so I can tell you many local political forums and blogs down here are literally alive with the most outrageous conspiracy theories as I write this. I try my best to debunk the nutters but I'm having some trouble with two of the proposed mechanisms of action of the "weapon":
1) Food. Many people think it's not irrational to consider the possibility of poisoning alla Litvinenko. Of course, that was radiation poisoning, not cancer, but what about a smaller dose or a less radioactive substance? One weak enough to produce no symptoms and go undetected in the body but strong enough to significantly increase the chances of developing cancer in the short term? Can this be possible with just one dose, or must be repeated over time to have a chance to work?
2) Harmful substances in microphones. One particularly nasty nutcase suggested (not before calling me every rotten name he could think of) there must be a plan to slowly eliminate leftist leaders in the region, and since those presidents meet between themselves a lot it would be relatively easy for an spy or secret agent to conceal a radioactive or carcinogenic agent on or inside the microphones they use to pronounce their brilliant speeches. The main problem is the device would need to be removed/deactivated when a right-wing president takes the microphone, but other than that I don't think I have enough info to evaluate the plausibility of this mechanism. Assuming that such a device exists, and exposes to dangerous radiation to everyone who uses the microphone for the duration of an average presidential speech, could just one exposure be enough to significantly increase the risk of cancer, or the "dose" would have to be repeated?
So, what do you guys/gals think? I'm quite sure this is total bunk, but sometimes the conspirationists get very creative and the refutations are far from obvious.
Kind regards,
Ernesto.
Newbie to the JREF forums here. I'm from Argentina, one of the countries whose president was supposedly targeted by the "cancer ray" so I can tell you many local political forums and blogs down here are literally alive with the most outrageous conspiracy theories as I write this. I try my best to debunk the nutters but I'm having some trouble with two of the proposed mechanisms of action of the "weapon":
1) Food. Many people think it's not irrational to consider the possibility of poisoning alla Litvinenko. Of course, that was radiation poisoning, not cancer, but what about a smaller dose or a less radioactive substance? One weak enough to produce no symptoms and go undetected in the body but strong enough to significantly increase the chances of developing cancer in the short term? Can this be possible with just one dose, or must be repeated over time to have a chance to work?
2) Harmful substances in microphones. One particularly nasty nutcase suggested (not before calling me every rotten name he could think of) there must be a plan to slowly eliminate leftist leaders in the region, and since those presidents meet between themselves a lot it would be relatively easy for an spy or secret agent to conceal a radioactive or carcinogenic agent on or inside the microphones they use to pronounce their brilliant speeches. The main problem is the device would need to be removed/deactivated when a right-wing president takes the microphone, but other than that I don't think I have enough info to evaluate the plausibility of this mechanism. Assuming that such a device exists, and exposes to dangerous radiation to everyone who uses the microphone for the duration of an average presidential speech, could just one exposure be enough to significantly increase the risk of cancer, or the "dose" would have to be repeated?
So, what do you guys/gals think? I'm quite sure this is total bunk, but sometimes the conspirationists get very creative and the refutations are far from obvious.
Kind regards,
Ernesto.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
The problem with any of these conspiracy theories is they rely on technology not in existence today. There is nothing we know of which will induce cancer in the short term. Long term exposure to high levels of substance "X" certainly ten years later will result in cancer. Breathing magic pixie dust off a microphone or dusted over your pancakes isn't going to happen.
Debaser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 806
Cancer is generally a condition found in the richer nations of the Earth. Over the last 50 years or so (and despite a few bumps along the way) would it be true to say that Latin America is getting richer and that the middle classes of various countries are growing? More people living longer able to afford those lovely healthy, fatty, western (or northern, if you prefer) diets.
QED Cancer will become a bigger killer within the population in general and by extension among the 50-60 year old generally middle class persons who make up the political classes throughout the world.
Although yes, the notion of a 60-odd year old man who has smoked for 50 of those years getting throat cancer is just sooooooo suspicious...(and you might want to watch out for the CIA's devilish heart attack dust, also scheduled to make an appearance amongst your leaders in the next 10 years).
kevsta
RBL CHeck Failed
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,016
well, you do frequent a skeptics forum, in the CT section, specifically for the purposes of debunking stuff (I thought) ?
but then refuse to look at it?
nothing personal against you or anybody about this, I just don't get why videos are so looked down on here, I would far rather press play and watch / listen for a few minutes than plough through pages of writing, personally.
I mean if its a carefully crafted 911 vid with sneaky emotional music and crafty editing that's one thing, but a straight video of a live debate, news appearance or speech?
egarcia1970
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4
Well, I can't comment for the whole of Latin America but in my country, in general rational and informed people see him as the deranged nutcase he is, and irrational and ignorant people consider him a hero and a great leader. Unfortunately the second group seems to be quite large.
Our own president Cristina Fernández, compared with Chávez, is only a couple steps down the ****wittery scale, and she got reelected by a whooping 54% last year. Regards,
Ernesto.
Childlike Empress
Banned
Where did you learn English, Ernesto?
Where did you?
BTMO
Overlord of the Underthings
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,521
I think that you need the past perfect (plus-que-parfait?) to get it right.
You could say:
Because he did say what he was reported to have said
or maybe...
Because he did actually say what he was reported to have said
egarcia1970
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4
I am going to guess Australia.
(that's a good thing, btw!)
Not really, although I'd love to visit Oz.
Actually I learned a great deal of English in high-school and almost immediately after graduating started to frequent international online discussions, first Usenet newsgroups and later web-based forums. I learned a lot from many English speakers from all over the world.Regards,
Ernesto.
BTMO
Overlord of the Underthings
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,521
Not really, although I'd love to visit Oz.
Regards,
Ernesto.
Well, you did a bloody good job!
My Spanish is confined to asking were the bathroom is, can I have more beer and can I have another coffee with milk. Actually, all three of those are related, really....
Gazpacho
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,136
Qualifying something as the view of "rational" people is about the laziest defense a person can make.
"Wise men call me a genius. Stupid and evil men call me crazy." -- timecube.com
Last edited:
That has nearly been said before.
I can't find the exact quote with google, but one Eastern Bloc spokesman (I think from the DDR) said that Communist factories didn't produce pollution (acid rain?) because it was "purified by the workers' sweat".
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Hi Ernesto,
first, welcome to the JREF!
Radioactivity can cause cancer, but it would not make a good stealth weapon, because it is always a pretty random process: Either you acumulate a very high dose that will quickly give you cancer - but will not stop at one cancer, but make you sick throughout, and you'll exhibit more symptoms of radio poisoning like Litvinenko; then it's not stealthy. Or you administer lower doses that will simply increase your risk of cancer - in that case, you have too little control over whether it will work quickly and lethally enough. Because radiation only increases the liklelihood of getting cancer.
As far as dosage is concerned, I think it doesn't matter much if you contract radioactive doses in one large dose or many small doses. By and large, it's the sum of doses that determines your cancer risk. It would however matter much on the particular chemical elelements and isotopes. If you pick one that the body quickly flushes through and that has a long half-life, you'd be better off giving doses continually, if you use a substance that the body retains for a long time (perhaps calcium in bones?), or that has a short half-life / high activity, one dose might suffice.
Another question concerns the choice of chemical substance. In radio medicine, they have plenty of tricks to transport radioactive materials to specific locations or systems in your body (ETA: include radio isotopes in particular sugars, proteins, enzymes etc.). Some may thus go exclusively to the blood, or the brain, or the lymphatic system (ETA: or areas of specific activity such as active cancer metabolism, healing, mental activity), etc. High-tech cancer terrorists could thus target specific organs or systems, and at the same time increase the accuracy with which thay apply a dose.
I think however that a surer way to induce cancer is the use of carcinogenic chemicals, simply because such substances can be applied a lot more specifically than the random-shooting of radioactivity. Such chemicals would ONLY give you cancer, and not any other symptoms that might give their presence away.
(Of course I believe not one second that anybody is actually doing any such stuff to the presidents of Latin America; just trying to answer your question.)
Last edited:
egarcia1970
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4
I wasn't "defending" anything. I was just answering a question by describing the situation here. There is a strong correlation between approval of Chávez and irrational beliefs in this country; if someone idolizes Chávez there's a good chance that person also holds that:
-The USA is the ultimate Evil Empire (TM)
-Capitalism is inherently evil.
-The current Cuban government is not a dictatorship.
-There's nothing wrong with Iran.
-9/11 was an inside job.
-Apollo 11 never went to the Moon.
-HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
-Free market policies are responsible for the current global economic crisis.
-Living with one of the top-three inflation rates in the world (one of the countries who surpasses us is Venezuela, BTW) is no big deal.
-Living under a highly corrupt government is no big deal.
-Attacking freedom of speech and independent media/newspapers is no big deal; moreover, it's a Good Thing (TM).
I could go on and on and on for hours. I whish I had a dollar (an American one please; our currency is worthless and losses its valor by the minute thanks to the wonderful friends of Chávez in the government) for every time I heard some deranged Chávez apologist uttering one of these inanities.
Regards,
Ernesto.
Last edited: