These angles shold be justified for stamping anything natural: 1. Exactly as it exist in nature 2. Exactly, its natural exposure 3. Exactly in natural environment 4. Exactly natural people. I think, indoor and mine expisure and even we may not be exactly natural. I do not know about its its toxic exposure is exactly on its natural form.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
These angles shold be justified for stamping anything natural: 1. Exactly as it exist in nature 2. Exactly, its natural exposure 3. Exactly in natural environment 4. Exactly natural people. I think, indoor and mine expisure and even we may not be exactly natural. I do not know about its its toxic exposure is exactly on its natural form.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Naturally occurring ionising radiation from radon gas, radioactive elements in the earth's crust and cosmic radiation fulfils all those criteria, and has been causing cancer ever since homo sapiens evolved.
So you have conceded that there are natural causes of cancer.
Quantity & exposure should also be natural.
I have not claimed that there can't be natural cause of cancer or of any other disease. Do you remember data given by me previously. But I was just checking whether it is really natural exposure or not and real natural cause of cancer why all living under its influence do not get cancer? AND if all are getting cancer WHY/HOW they are living there?
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You certainly seem very reluctant to accept the idea.
No.
It is.
It increases the chances of DNA being damaged, it does not guarantee that DNA will be damaged. It's just blind luck who gets it. Just like not everybody who smokes get cancer, but the cancer rate is much higher in smokers than non smokers.
a) they are not all getting cancer
b) for most of recorded history people had no idea what radiation was, let alone that living in certain areas increased your exposure to it and that this increased your chances of dying young, so there was no known reason not to settle these areas
c) Once a settlement exists people tend to be reluctant to leave it, even if they now know there are dangers there. People continue to live next to active volcanos FFS
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Astrology does not predict that the moon will affect the tides. Science predicts that the moon will affect the tides.
Astrology is not science, it's superstition.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The ability to digest lactose as adults is an adaptation that has appeared since we started domesticating animals.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, *I am just checking.
All above can suggest, it can depend on individual immunity, whether they will get or not.
Still living inspite of knowing it, will just suicidal, so bit unnatural. Even, how govt can allow it?
I can not say, but exact calculations about movement of planets and environmental changes, even on computer ,are apparent since old times.
How our ancestors got idea of domesticating animals?
Still, moon affect tides. It can suggest planets can affect earth. Mutual attraction repulsion between planets can be other thought.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It suggests they can affect earth's orbit, as predicted by science. It does not suggest they can affect the characters and personalities of the people living on it, or the events they experience, as predicted by astrology.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
They were smart, and it was the obvious thing to do.
Why it can't be natural since beginning? Obviously, Idea of milk should have been definitely there due to mother milk taking.
There can be following logics:
1. Planets directly affect us due to their emitted rays.
2. Planets affect earth, which indirectly affect us.
3. Their motions since perfectly calculative, these have taken just for calculation purpose by matching such calculation with environmental natural variations.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
1. Are you saying the moon is a planet? It's not.
2. What rays does the moon emit? You know gravity makes the tides Right? Not rays?
3. What rays are other planets emitting?
2. What rays does the moon emit? You know gravity makes the tides Right? Not rays?
3. What rays are other planets emitting?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967