FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Mobile phones & microwave masts 'don't cause harm'
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Other Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 am    Post subject: Mobile phones & microwave masts 'don't cause harm' Reply with quote

Comment: You could have got the impression from TV News that this issue had been resolved... however on closer examination its another media lie.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=58678&in_page_i d=34

Mobile phone masts 'don't cause harm'
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Mobile phone masts do not trigger flu-like symptoms in people who claim to be sensitive to their signals, a new study has shown.

Radio waves emitted by the masts appear to be harmless both to vulnerable and normal healthy individuals, at least over short periods of time, scientists found.

One of the largest investigations of its kind found that sensitive volunteers appear to feel genuinely unwell when they know they are being exposed to radio waves.

But carefully designed experiments showed that, when they didn't know if the transmitter was on or off, their symptoms were no worse when they were being exposed to radio waves - suggesting that their symptoms are more likely to have another origin, possibly a psychological one.

Professor Elaine Fox, from the University of Essex, who led the study, said: "We do know there is a very large literature showing that the placebo effect, the power of belief, is very powerful. There's nothing magical about that. There are real clinical, biological effects.

"I'm pretty confident that it's not the electromagnetic field causing these symptoms."

People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity complain of cold and flu-like symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phones, transmission masts, and computers.

The physical effects range from a "fuzziness" in the head to nausea and sensations of burning skin. In the worst cases, people have been forced to change job or move house, or to shield their homes with metal foil.

However, numerous studies have failed to show that sensitive individuals can detect the presence of radio waves when the source is hidden.

The few studies that have indicated real health effects caused by electromagnetic fields are said to have suffered design flaws, or could not be replicated.

In the new study, conducted at a special laboratory at the University of Essex in Colchester, scientists simulated exposure to signals from standard digital and "third generation" (3G) mobile phone masts at a range of 30 to 60 metres.

They first established that a group of "sensitive" volunteers reported feeling less well than "normal" participants when they knew they were in the path of the signals.

Twelve of the original 56 felt so bad that they dropped out of the study at that stage.

The remaining 44 then underwent similar tests in double blind conditions, where neither experimenter nor participant knew when the transmitter was on or off.

Their responses were compared with those of 114 non-sensitive volunteers used as controls.

Two of the sensitive individuals, and five of the control participants, correctly judged when the mast was on or off in all six 50-minute tests - exactly the proportion expected by chance.

Compared with the comparison group, sensitive volunteers reported more symptoms throughout the tests, but it made no difference whether or not the signals were being beamed at them.

Their skin was also "sweatier", as shown by a measure called skin conductance, indicating a heightened response to stress.

Prof Fox said: "It is clear that sensitive individuals are suffering real symptoms and often have a poor quality of life. It is now important to determine what other factors could be causing these symptoms, so appropriate research studies and treatment strategies can be developed."

She said the negative health effects associated with mobile phones or radio masts may reflect a general techno-phobia that has afflicted certain individuals throughout the modern age.

"When TV first came in, and TV masts went up, a lot of people complained, and certainly there were a lot of complaints about microwave ovens," she said.

People naturally attributed the symptoms they felt to the source of their anxiety, Prof Fox added.

"They might have a headache, and they notice on the train that someone has a mobile phone, so they immediately make the attribution, that it must be the mobile phone causing the problem," she told a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London.

"There's nothing strange about that, it's what we all do, but it becomes quite dangerous when it's to do with health symptoms."

The new findings are published in the on-line journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Prof Fox's team is now conducting a similar study of the effects of TETRA, the new radio system designed for the emergency services.


Also:
The fundamental issue that worries most people (apart from use of our taxes and doubts about the way the Home Office contract was awarded) is that the system uses pulsed microwave radiation, at a pulse frequency of 17.6Hz, which is very close to a key frequency of electrical activity in the human brain at 16Hz (our beta brain waves are around 13Hz to 20Hz). The defence from anyone with a vested interest in TETRA/Airwave (the brand name) is usually that either there is no pulse (remember in history at school Nelson and ‘I see no ships!’?), or that the intensity of the radiation is too low to matter.

What the article fails to inform people is the fact that (From mastsanity.org):


Quote:
"Their conclusion was made possible by eliminating 12 of the most sensitive electrosentive volunteers who had become too ill to continue the study. Even a child can see that by eliminating 12 of the original 56 electrosensitive volunteers - over 20% of the group - that the study integrity has been completely breached."

Also, it fails to mention (from the bbc article):


Quote:
The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and government.

"Funded by industry" meaning mobile phone companies and basically the Mobile Operators Association.

And of course all those lovely taxes that the government rakes in from the estimated £1 Billion a month the industry pulls in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and government.

"Funded by industry" meaning mobile phone companies and basically the Mobile Operators Association.


When i heard this blatant propaganda, i instantly said, ''i bet it was the mobile phone companies'' that funded the study.

Its akin to mass murderers doing a study and funding organistations created by themselves to come up 'results' that they are innocent.

12 of the group became so ill? from the pulsed microwaves by any chance?

Still, i expect the money in luring maggie thatcher onto some form of directorship with the Talk Talk scum was money well spent?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They tried this with the overhead powerlines... and sure enough over time the evidence started to come in that Leukemia etc. clusters were real. the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There can be no doubt that we all have differing views about all aspects of existence, the why, the who, the how, but one thing I am certain of is that humans love to shift the blame onto others.

Where I live there was a petition and meeting about a proposed phone mast. During the meeting two mobiles phones went off and they both belonged to the 'anti-proposal' camp. Outside in the break, many were then on their mobiles discussing and ranting with other family members.

The point here is that we are quite happy to use facilities that might encroach on others - the network they were using meant going through infrastructure that sat on someone else's doorstep. If we were genuinely serious about the damage we did to ourselves by mobile phone use - we'd all sling them in the bin. How many members here own a mobile phone?

As for 'the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending', is quite vague, when we are all to blame to a greater or lesser degree, be it from the pair of trainers we bought that were made by exploited child labour, to having a home wireless network for our computers - no-one is completely innocent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
There can be no doubt that we all have differing views about all aspects of existence, the why, the who, the how, but one thing I am certain of is that humans love to shift the blame onto others.

Where I live there was a petition and meeting about a proposed phone mast. During the meeting two mobiles phones went off and they both belonged to the 'anti-proposal' camp. Outside in the break, many were then on their mobiles discussing and ranting with other family members.

The point here is that we are quite happy to use facilities that might encroach on others - the network they were using meant going through infrastructure that sat on someone else's doorstep. If we were genuinely serious about the damage we did to ourselves by mobile phone use - we'd all sling them in the bin. How many members here own a mobile phone?

As for 'the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending', is quite vague, when we are all to blame to a greater or lesser degree, be it from the pair of trainers we bought that were made by exploited child labour, to having a home wireless network for our computers - no-one is completely innocent.


nice one, some points very well made.

i agree 100%, sling the mobiles in the bin, i refuse to use one or contact one, i have even resorted to singing badly at the top of my voice next to the idiots screaming down a mobile next to me, they got the message. particularly useful strategy if on a bus or train, if you dont mind the stares from startled onlookers.

i await the man made global warming nutters selling their cars and walking or cycling everwhere.

the same can be said for the frenzy the anti smoking brigade work themselves into. they dont smoke so noone else is allowed to, yet swallow all kinds of E numbers withought or thought, or serve E numbers and colourings to family and friends. its all too much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
There can be no doubt that we all have differing views about all aspects of existence, the why, the who, the how, but one thing I am certain of is that humans love to shift the blame onto others.
As for 'the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending', is quite vague, when we are all to blame to a greater or lesser degree, be it from the pair of trainers we bought that were made by exploited child labour, to having a home wireless network for our computers - no-one is completely innocent.

Mate you have been created with free will to choose. You can choose to buy a pair pf trainers not made using child labour. You can avoid spending your money in certain shops. We all need mobile phones but that does not mean they cant be made safer and that masts cannot be located in unpopulated areas. A mast next door to you will cause health problems. A mast next to a motorway or in a field will not.

Long Tooth wrote:

i agree 100%, sling the mobiles in the bin, i refuse to use one or contact one, i have even resorted to singing badly at the top of my voice next to the idiots screaming down a mobile next to me, they got the message. particularly useful strategy if on a bus or train, if you dont mind the stares from startled onlookers.

for some reason your behaviour does not surprise me.

Long Tooth wrote:

i await the man made global warming nutters selling their cars and walking or cycling everwhere.

I note you excluded flying which is far more polluting than driving
i choose not to fly. My BMW diesel does 48.1mpg.

Long Tooth wrote:

the same can be said for the frenzy the anti smoking brigade work themselves into. they dont smoke so noone else is allowed to, yet swallow all kinds of E numbers withought or thought, or serve E numbers and colourings to family and friends. its all too much.

Smoking is bad and should be banned, i have been breathing in other peoples smoke for more years than i can mention. It is smokers who have no respect for non smokers. I used to be a smoker and i could never understand why smokers used to enjoy being huddled in enclosed spaces together. I found smoking much better outdoors. Especially as it was easier to keep secret from your parents.

If you want to be healthy: throw away your microwave. That is far worse for you than any GM foods or mobile phone masts.
Trust me i swear to God.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How many members here own a mobile phone?

I did... mine is on the side with the battery out. I refuse to use them now.
We are mostly water. Microwaved water on plants kills them. I don't use microwaves either. I also gather the NWO wish to irradiate every bit of food. I wonder why. These scum are attacking us on every level. Tests have shown that microwaves can control people. Nor do I use a wireless network. We must start taking individual responsibility. This is partly where things went wrong.

I also disagree about everyone is to blame on this sort of issue... people expect to be able to trust in the integrity of so called experts, who are assumed to have made sure technology is safe. The media backs up this view. The reality is its biased research funded by the very bodies who stand to gain. The fact that the full damaging impact of this stuff hasn't been widely seen yet is irrelevant... you will.

I believe much of whats introduced that subsequently turns out to be suspect is no accident.

GM is very very dangerous. They do not understand this tech. Change one gene and it changes many others. The very fact that they don't, nor could not, guarantee cross pollination is vandalism of nature. They should be sued for every single case of cross pollination that occurs. Of course what the so called law will allow is the perverted opposite.

Personally I believe these scum have many interleaving techniques and sciences that damage us and they actually are intending to attempt to overide our free will and control the remaining population as slaves. Can I prove it? No. Can I show much of this stuff is dangerous? Yes. Half the time its common sense. Look whats in vaccinations for example. But my view is this is very very deliberate!

By 'these people' I mean the illuminati, NWO, Globalist, Corporate types and their helpers. It has to be vague because we haven't got all the information needed to be sure who is involved in this insane conspiracy thats going on. Do I want the average man in the street? No. Do I want Monsanto and its board? Yes... etc. etc. etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double post
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stelios wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
There can be no doubt that we all have differing views about all aspects of existence, the why, the who, the how, but one thing I am certain of is that humans love to shift the blame onto others.
As for 'the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending', is quite vague, when we are all to blame to a greater or lesser degree, be it from the pair of trainers we bought that were made by exploited child labour, to having a home wireless network for our computers - no-one is completely innocent.

Mate you have been created with free will to choose. You can choose to buy a pair pf trainers not made using child labour. You can avoid spending your money in certain shops. We all need mobile phones but that does not mean they cant be made safer and that masts cannot be located in unpopulated areas. A mast next door to you will cause health problems. A mast next to a motorway or in a field will not.

Long Tooth wrote:

i agree 100%, sling the mobiles in the bin, i refuse to use one or contact one, i have even resorted to singing badly at the top of my voice next to the idiots screaming down a mobile next to me, they got the message. particularly useful strategy if on a bus or train, if you dont mind the stares from startled onlookers.

for some reason your behaviour does not surprise me.

Long Tooth wrote:

i await the man made global warming nutters selling their cars and walking or cycling everwhere.

I note you excluded flying which is far more polluting than driving
i choose not to fly. My BMW diesel does 48.1mpg.

Long Tooth wrote:

the same can be said for the frenzy the anti smoking brigade work themselves into. they dont smoke so noone else is allowed to, yet swallow all kinds of E numbers withought or thought, or serve E numbers and colourings to family and friends. its all too much.

Smoking is bad and should be banned, i have been breathing in other peoples smoke for more years than i can mention. It is smokers who have no respect for non smokers. I used to be a smoker and i could never understand why smokers used to enjoy being huddled in enclosed spaces together. I found smoking much better outdoors. Especially as it was easier to keep secret from your parents.

If you want to be healthy: throw away your microwave. That is far worse for you than any GM foods or mobile phone masts.
Trust me i swear to God.


We do not ''all need mobile phones.''

you are a classic nutcase, you vilify smokers, yet you continue to posion others with your car exhaust fumes.

perhaps you can try this experiment. go to your garage, light up a cigarette and smoke it, in fact chain smoke for an hour. then park your car in the garage, keep the engine running and open the car windows,make sure the garage door is closed too, sit in the car with the engine running for an hour, then report back to me which will kill you the quickest.

perhaps you can PM me when you have done the test and i will send you a nice bottle of wine to enjoy. it will not be retinsa lokri either. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A good Chianti will do
I dont have a garage and i dont smoke. Can i still try the experiment?

So as you are a rabid smoker, do you not agree that smoking is bad for you and you should try and give it up. If the government were to ban all the cheap tobacco that comes from France, Belgium and Andorra many less people would smoke.
Not to mention the pollution caused with so many vehicles driving over to europe and back loaded up with cheap cigarettes.
Only 1 in a 1000 booze cruisers are stopped and searched. Many also return with drugs, and guns and illegals.

What government in the world allows its people to drive sometimes a thousand mile trip to smuggle contraband? I cannot understand it.

does anyone understand why the government allows it despite the pollution and loss of tax revenue?

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They can't allow Customs and Excise to get too closely involved with Border issues. They might stumble upon the Governments People Smuggling or Drugs racket.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stelios wrote:
A good Chianti will do
I dont have a garage and i dont smoke. Can i still try the experiment?

So as you are a rabid smoker, do you not agree that smoking is bad for you and you should try and give it up. If the government were to ban all the cheap tobacco that comes from France, Belgium and Andorra many less people would smoke.
Not to mention the pollution caused with so many vehicles driving over to europe and back loaded up with cheap cigarettes.
Only 1 in a 1000 booze cruisers are stopped and searched. Many also return with drugs, and guns and illegals.

What government in the world allows its people to drive sometimes a thousand mile trip to smuggle contraband? I cannot understand it.

does anyone understand why the government allows it despite the pollution and loss of tax revenue?


Smoking naturaly grown tobacco is not bad for you, its the tobacco thats grown thats been modified and all the other harmful chemicals added thats a killer.

theres people thats smoked 80 a day for 60 years and lived to 90,theres people who have never smoked and never been in a room with a person smoking and they die at 30 from some form of cancer.

perhaps we will meet up one day in a unified protest for 9/11 truth, i will bring you a faustino V Rioja for us to drink and discuss our diffrences civily.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6259

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the flight being more poluting true or a myth?
Of course I'm not to silly they burn alot more fuel for sure but they also carry alot more passengers and luggage! Probably a train would be best but then you have to remember you need alot of land for rails and same goes for cars really!! I'm sure a few runways must be better than concrete and steel jungles,but maybe ditch the Jet engine perhaps, Balloons and Airships are probably in reality the most friendly, probably even moreso than cycling, just remember to watch the weather! Wink

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No airplanes are the most polluting DD.
It cannot be correct that flying to Scotland is cheaper than the train. Aiviation fuel is subsidised because it has no tax added to it.
Ridiculous.
Im all in favour of airships, in the early 1900s to 1930s airships were the aviation.
Very low fuel and very safe too.
Ignore the propaganda about the zeppelin. It was filled with hydrogen which burns, helium is inert which does not burn.
Why cant they at least use airships for freight and start using canals again?
It is the power of the oil lobby that keeps air travel cheap.

I also like to point out, what is the point of a £19 Ryanair flight, most of the time it is alot more expensive anyway, but if your cab fare to the airport costs more thsn the flight something has to be wrong.
People wont be in favour of cheap flights when they learn that cheap flights mean higher taxes elsewhere.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would agree, organic tobacco smoked in a pipe is safe compared to cigarettes which include gunpowder, arsenic, petrol distilates,
It would make a great business ORGANIC fags
But to say that a person who smokes 80 and does not get cancer is due to his food comsumption.
EG: Turks are heavy smokers, but have low cancer rates so something in their diet protects them
Black Tea
British people who drink lots of cups of strong tea are possibly less well protected because our favourite tea is White tea as opposed to the big leaf and heavily steeped black tea.

Question, it must be possible to grow your own tobacco in the garden?
Cant be illegal?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The goverment wants the booze cruising, how else are they going to export all of British controlled heroin exports from Afghanistan.
Any sensible government would ban smuggling, but ofcourse everything the government does is upside down.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Smoking is bad and should be banned,


The voice of liberty speaks!

Banning drugs simply does not work. Never has, never will. And if I want to poison myself with fags, I will - so you get back in your zeppelin!
Cigs have been banned before. In the seventeenth century, Russia introduced the DEATH PENALTY for cigs. Didn't work. If you think cigs are full of nonsense now, just think what pure black market fags would be full of. Dirtier than the dirtiest cannabis resin.

Nice post by Tele. I don't own my own mobile but have to have one for work. If I end up using it for too long, that side of my head goes kinda hot and funny. Consequently, I try to keep use of it to a minimum.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its the 'Smoking Kills' message on the outside of the packet that does you in. The Power of suggestion!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk said;
Quote:
If I end up using it for too long, that side of my head goes kinda hot and funny.


Having Googled 'hot and funny', it returned a number of interesting sites, although I am fairly certain they are completely unrelated to what you meant. There was however a mobile phone on one but it wasn't anywhere near the young lady's ear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk wrote:

Quote:
Smoking is bad and should be banned,

The voice of liberty speaks!

If i dont smoke, why was i for many years forced to breath in other peoples smoke?
What about my liberty.
You have a shower, stick on clean clothes, couple of squirts of EGOISTE and your ready for action, but the smell of other peoples fags makes you dirty again, sometimes it really was not worth washing ebefore going to work, bwtter to wash when you came home.
If smokers kept their fumes to themselves then i wouldn't mind.

Dogsmilk wrote:

Banning drugs simply does not work. Never has, never will. And if I want to poison myself with fags, I will - so you get back in your zeppelin!
Cigs have been banned before. In the seventeenth century, Russia introduced the DEATH PENALTY for cigs. Didn't work. If you think cigs are full of nonsense now, just think what pure black market fags would be full of. Dirtier than the dirtiest cannabis resin.

Look i understand there are a large number of spliffheads who are also truthers. But the reality is if the government wants us to take drugs we will. Todays labour government is doing it;s best to dumb down the nation by flooding the streets with drugs and booze.
It is legal for people to possess weed for personal use.
The government is ensuring via it's protection of poppy growers in afghanistan and via its open borders and via it's free booze cruise policy that that heroin ends up over here.
Britain is the biggest drug and booze nation in the European continent.
I grew up in Tottenham and have participated in everything even at school. Drugs are very bad and very harmful. You are much better without anything.
By taking drugs you are pleasing Labour who want the masses to be buzzed out of their skulls on booze and spliffs. That way you wont question what the government does. You probably wont even vote or participate.
Communism was all about brainwashing and control. Drugs is the easy way because you are self medicating and abstaing from society.
Unfortunately drugs are an epidemic at the moment, until we get a proper government and i dont mean Dave 'barry White' Caneron.

Anyway i know the 'green' brigade will attack me
but i did waste years on that nonsense and i am so much better without


Dogsmilk wrote:

If I end up using it for too long, that side of my head goes kinda hot and funny. Consequently, I try to keep use of it to a minimum.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stelios wrote:
Dogsmilk wrote:

Quote:
Smoking is bad and should be banned,

The voice of liberty speaks!

If i dont smoke, why was i for many years forced to breath in other peoples smoke?
What about my liberty.
You have a shower, stick on clean clothes, couple of squirts of EGOISTE and your ready for action, but the smell of other peoples fags makes you dirty again, sometimes it really was not worth washing ebefore going to work, bwtter to wash when you came home.
If smokers kept their fumes to themselves then i wouldn't mind.

Dogsmilk wrote:

Banning drugs simply does not work. Never has, never will. And if I want to poison myself with fags, I will - so you get back in your zeppelin!
Cigs have been banned before. In the seventeenth century, Russia introduced the DEATH PENALTY for cigs. Didn't work. If you think cigs are full of nonsense now, just think what pure black market fags would be full of. Dirtier than the dirtiest cannabis resin.

Look i understand there are a large number of spliffheads who are also truthers. But the reality is if the government wants us to take drugs we will. Todays labour government is doing it;s best to dumb down the nation by flooding the streets with drugs and booze.
It is legal for people to possess weed for personal use.
The government is ensuring via it's protection of poppy growers in afghanistan and via its open borders and via it's free booze cruise policy that that heroin ends up over here.
Britain is the biggest drug and booze nation in the European continent.
I grew up in Tottenham and have participated in everything even at school. Drugs are very bad and very harmful. You are much better without anything.
By taking drugs you are pleasing Labour who want the masses to be buzzed out of their skulls on booze and spliffs. That way you wont question what the government does. You probably wont even vote or participate.
Communism was all about brainwashing and control. Drugs is the easy way because you are self medicating and abstaing from society.
Unfortunately drugs are an epidemic at the moment, until we get a proper government and i dont mean Dave 'barry White' Caneron.

Anyway i know the 'green' brigade will attack me
but i did waste years on that nonsense and i am so much better without


Dogsmilk wrote:

If I end up using it for too long, that side of my head goes kinda hot and funny. Consequently, I try to keep use of it to a minimum.


Not wanting people smoking all over you is one thing, calling for something to be banned is quite another. Hearing Justin Timberlake makes me feel quite ill, but if people want to listen to him in such a way that doesn't affect me then I think they should be allowed to get on with it.

Whether any truthers are 'spliffheads' or whether drugs serve to zombify people (I think they can. But on the other hand, I know taking acid twenty years ago made me think about one or two things in a very different way) is neither here nor there. People have experimented with mind altering drugs for pretty much as long as there's been people and punitive bans have a consistent tendency to fail. Simple as. Like it or not, drugs will be taken if people want to take them. It's not about being 'pro' or 'anti' drug. The idea you can be a made into a criminal just by knowingly ingesting a chemical for fun seems totally insane to me.
Regarding heroin, if we went back to giving those addicted the smack they need on the NHS (like we used to), the enormous black market would simply collapse. As it is, users frequently flog their methadone to buy gear or else just use on top if it's supervised consumption. Subutex can be good, though.
It is not legal to possess weed for personal use. It is a class C drug. Hence illegal. The police will let you off with a warning, but move to cautions and formal charges for repeat offences. It will soon be class B again. The police may choose to ignore it in certain areas, but that's their discretion.
Labour have done nothing unique regarding 'flooding the streets'. You'd think you'd be happy they've banned smoking in public places. The heroin epidemic really got going in the eighties, helped by Thatcher reducing many communities to jobless wastelands. In fact, drug use by young people leveled out and reduced slightly from the early 2000s. Not that I think Labour made that happen; the NTA are a bunch of f*ckwits.
I hate Labour and the Tories, but it sometimes seems you think if it starts raining it's the fault of the Labour party.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Dogsmilk said;
Quote:
If I end up using it for too long, that side of my head goes kinda hot and funny.


Having Googled 'hot and funny', it returned a number of interesting sites, although I am fairly certain they are completely unrelated to what you meant. There was however a mobile phone on one but it wasn't anywhere near the young lady's ear.


I think I saw the same site. I thought it was a way to use my mobile more safely. I wondered why I got escorted off that train.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I watched a one hour programme the other night called "My Brilliant Brain" (or something like that) and a young man had a powerful magnet held to the side of his head for 15 minutes then was given tasks to perform which he had already done earlier under "normal" conditions. The difference was remarkable. Basically much of his left side had been "disabled" so he became temporarily autistic for a while. The effect wore off after a few hours but if magnetism can do that then I am never going to hold a mobile 'phone to the side of my head repeatedly, exposing myself to whatever radiation it uses!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stelios wrote:
Dogsmilk wrote:

Quote:
Smoking is bad and should be banned,

The voice of liberty speaks!

If i dont smoke, why was i for many years forced to breath in other peoples smoke?
What about my liberty.
You have a shower, stick on clean clothes, couple of squirts of EGOISTE and your ready for action, but the smell of other peoples fags makes you dirty again, sometimes it really was not worth washing ebefore going to work, bwtter to wash when you came home.
If smokers kept their fumes to themselves then i wouldn't mind.

Dogsmilk wrote:

Banning drugs simply does not work. Never has, never will. And if I want to poison myself with fags, I will - so you get back in your zeppelin!
Cigs have been banned before. In the seventeenth century, Russia introduced the DEATH PENALTY for cigs. Didn't work. If you think cigs are full of nonsense now, just think what pure black market fags would be full of. Dirtier than the dirtiest cannabis resin.

Look i understand there are a large number of spliffheads who are also truthers. But the reality is if the government wants us to take drugs we will. Todays labour government is doing it;s best to dumb down the nation by flooding the streets with drugs and booze.
It is legal for people to possess weed for personal use.
The government is ensuring via it's protection of poppy growers in afghanistan and via its open borders and via it's free booze cruise policy that that heroin ends up over here.
Britain is the biggest drug and booze nation in the European continent.
I grew up in Tottenham and have participated in everything even at school. Drugs are very bad and very harmful. You are much better without anything.
By taking drugs you are pleasing Labour who want the masses to be buzzed out of their skulls on booze and spliffs. That way you wont question what the government does. You probably wont even vote or participate.
Communism was all about brainwashing and control. Drugs is the easy way because you are self medicating and abstaing from society.
Unfortunately drugs are an epidemic at the moment, until we get a proper government and i dont mean Dave 'barry White' Caneron.

Anyway i know the 'green' brigade will attack me
but i did waste years on that nonsense and i am so much better without


Dogsmilk wrote:

If I end up using it for too long, that side of my head goes kinda hot and funny. Consequently, I try to keep use of it to a minimum.


why just persecute smokers? what about the people forced to breath your carbon monoxide car fumes? the same can also be said of exhaust fumes, walk by busy roads and the smell of exhaust fumes in the clothes makes me ill and dazed, or is that the effect of the carbon monoxide i am ingesting.

If you want liberty what are you doing residing in the UK? theres almost zero liberty here.

you confuse drugs, heroin is deadly, thats why its made, opium is medicinal, heroin is made from opium and mixed with deadly chemicals.

you confuse the hybrid forms of marijuana from natural marijuana, skunk for example is a hybrid, causing mental problems. The same with resin, mixed with toxins.

industrial grown and treated tobacco is the same, toxicants mixed. natural grown tobacco is medicinal.

can you spot the pattern yet?

you think communism was about control and brainwashing, why omit democracy and christianity, i would suggest they are on the same par of brainwashing and control, wouldant you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk wrote:
In fact, drug use by young people leveled out and reduced slightly from the early 2000s.

can you quote stats for this?
because my anecdotal evidence tells me during the labour years there has been exponential growth

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Long Tooth wrote;

Quote:
why just persecute smokers? what about the people forced to breath your carbon monoxide car fumes? the same can also be said of exhaust fumes, walk by busy roads and the smell of .......................... and christianity, i would suggest they are on the same par of brainwashing and control, wouldant you?


I have yet to see a debate on smoking where the 'comparison card' isn't played during the proceedings.

Those who champion smoking are unable to simply let smoking stand on its own merits, or detail the wonderful things smoking brings to the world - because those things don't exist. Instead we get this endless protracted diatribe about the internal combustion engine and how bad it is - well yes, cars do pollute the environment, they kill by hitting pedestrians and other vehicles, but smokers don't smoke because the internal combustion engine exists - they smoke because they are drug addicts and deliberately inhaling foul smelling poisonous smoke is the vehicle by which the drug enters their system.

Traffic pollution is a completely different subject and is only dragged into the subject because smokers have nothing whatsoever to use in their favour, so their only option is compare what others do that they find obnoxious.

In an ideal world, there would be a pollution free transport system, but there isn't, we are currently stuck with the way things are. However, in addition to the downsides, the internal combustion engine irrigates dry fields and barren landscapes, it transports the sick and injured to hospitals, it brings food to starving people and fills our shops and supermarkets with fresh fruit and produce, it allows experts to turn up at your house with gallons of water when your house in on fire.

We are currently going through global change with regard to our attitudes towards ego-boosting large vehicles in favour of smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. If I didn't need a car, I wouldn't own one, but because of where I live and the lack of public transport, I am obligated to, but I own one that gives me 80mpg (a diesel Aygo), and only use it when I have to.

I fully appreciate the frustration smokers feel, but most are weak-minded thoughtless individuals that are insensitive to those around them. To see a mother carefully strap her beloved offspring into a special car seat, fix the harnesses, wrap a blanket around the child, then get in and then fill the car with carcinogenic smoke has to be the height of stupidity and selfishness. No wonder smokers are considered outcasts, most simply have no clue how unpleasant their habit is for non-smokers.

Smokers aren't the only ones persecuted, but that is the subject on the table.

Incidentally, I have never once smoked anything, and both my parents died from smoking related illness.


Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we had no tobacco then we'd all have to smoke solid weed joints!

Last edited by Cruise4 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 12103
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been made permanently worse; I had to pull out of the remaining tests. Although double blind I knew that the mast was on. How? I bled internally for two weeks. That is what happens to me when I get too close to a mast for too long. Bleeding internally, can this be psychosomatic I ask myself? Perhaps my gut has decided to join in on this misinformation? Maybe my gut is in league with my brain in deluding me?"
http://www.mastsanity.org

Cancer clusters at phone masts
SEVEN clusters of cancer and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone masts, raising concerns over the technology’s potential impact on health.
Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer, brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure within a radius of 400 yards of mobile phone masts.
One of the studies, in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street. A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90ft high mast have developed tumours since 2000, while another quarter have suffered significant health problems.

http://www.mastaction.co.uk

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Long Tooth wrote;

Quote:
why just persecute smokers? what about the people forced to breath your carbon monoxide car fumes? the same can also be said of exhaust fumes, walk by busy roads and the smell of .......................... and christianity, i would suggest they are on the same par of brainwashing and control, wouldant you?


I have yet to see a debate on smoking where the 'comparison card' isn't played during the proceedings.

Those who champion smoking are unable to simply let smoking stand on its own merits, or detail the wonderful things smoking brings to the world - because those things don't exist. Instead we get this endless protracted diatribe about the internal combustion engine and how bad it is - well yes, cars do pollute the environment, they kill by hitting pedestrians and other vehicles, but smokers don't smoke because the internal combustion engine exists - they smoke because they are drug addicts and deliberately inhaling foul smelling poisonous smoke is the vehicle by which the drug enters their system.

Traffic pollution is a completely different subject and is only dragged into the subject because smokers have nothing whatsoever to use in their favour, so their only option is compare what others do that they find obnoxious.

In an ideal world, there would be a pollution free transport system, but there isn't, we are currently stuck with the way things are. However, in addition to the downsides, the internal combustion engine irrigates dry fields and barren landscapes, it transports the sick and injured to hospitals, it brings food to starving people and fills our shops and supermarkets with fresh fruit and produce, it allows experts to turn up at your house with gallons of water when your house in on fire.

We are currently going through global change with regard to our attitudes towards ego-boosting large vehicles in favour of smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. If I didn't need a car, I wouldn't own one, but because of where I live and the lack of public transport, I am obligated to, but I own one that gives me 80mpg (a diesel Aygo), and only use it when I have to.

I fully appreciate the frustration smokers feel, but most are weak-minded thoughtless individuals that are insensitive to those around them. To see a mother carefully strap her beloved offspring into a special car seat, fix the harnesses, wrap a blanket around the child, then get in and then fill the car with carcinogenic smoke has to be the height of stupidity and selfishness. No wonder smokers are considered outcasts, most simply have no clue how unpleasant their habit is for non-smokers.

Smokers aren't the only ones persecuted, but that is the subject on the table.

Incidentally, I have never once smoked anything, and both my parents died from smoking related illness.


my grandparents smoked 60 a day for 70 years, one passed away aged 94 and the other 89. i know friends whose parents have been mowed down by cars.

i guess you have neglacted to mention the natural grown tobacco. The stuff people grow to smoke themselves, to relieve the stress of the day. No heart attacks from stress for them.

Still i guess if people want to smoke the natural grown tobacco in public places then a move where such freedoms still exist is the route to go.

one point of caution. a friends father has been a non smoker all his life, hes now 70, always stayed away from pubs with smoke etc. he recently went to the doctors and described his symptoms. the doctor immedietly replied that he should stop smoking!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

not the smoking debate again,

this is simple, smokers will defend their right to smoke the same as drivers will defend their right to drive, both have an effect on health and both are personal choice in most cases(i walk/bike it and always have) and also not everyone can avoid breathing the fumes in, in either case in.

http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=12789&ref=arc hive

smoking is bad but don't just lay all the blame at the feet of smokers for illness or polluting ones fresh air.

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/childleukaemialay.pdf

"Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas found in car fumes"
http://www.eastcambsandfenland-pct.nhs.uk/default.asp?id=28

i wonder what all that smog i saw hanging over the city was? those stupid smokers!

"The smell of a new car 'is like glue-sniffing'"
http://www.ristacoat.cn/en/MediaReport.html

i accept smoking is very bad, but also will admit driving and other activitys are not helping much either, if some want to think its playing a card then fine. but its no differant to me being against people eating dog's in china whilst out hunting foxes and dropping of at mcdonalds at launch time. they are all the same in principle.

smoking pollutes the air, so do drivers. smokers fumes effect health, so do car fumes when they accumilate in large citys, smoking causes cancer and so does lots and lots of other things.

we can keep laying all the blame at the smokers door if it excuses the things non smokers like to do, but clean air and cancer rates dropping will not happen as a result even if smoking was outlawed all together.

only god knows what mix of chemicals i breathe on the way into town.

smog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog

grime
http://cooperator.com/articles/1269/1/Squeaky-Clean/Page1.html

i kind of see those who just complain about smokers without thinking about their own actions as hypocrits, because when you think about it car fumes are just the same as smoking but on a larger scale.

the smell, the sticking to your skin and cloths, the chemicals being inhaled, the lack of thought for others by many who use the car for every trip including the ones down the road to the shop or school.(driving should be a last resort or long distance or transporting large items, but you will find with the vast majority its just because they cannot be bothered to walk). when those people strat thinking about there actions, then i will feel guilty for being a smoker and not untill.


Last edited by marky 54 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i do all i can to ensure others do not breathe my smoke and only smoke outside and at home at the back door and have always done so even before the ban was even thought of, but while ever smokers are the scapegoats i cannot see others doing what they can to change or lessen the effects of their habit(ie stop being lazy and walk more often or get a bike for short trips when alone etc), hence i will not be made to feel guilty just for being a smoker.

if clean air and health is the issue then we are all a part of making this better and the issue involves us all, targetting groups and pointing fingers is just a way out of the same responsibilitys but with other habits.

pollution(smoking or otherwise) causes cancer and poor air quality, cigerettes just contain more cancer causing chemicals(60 i think), that dos'nt mean smoking is the route of all cancer.

even smokers can and have died from cancer that is unrelated to smoking, my mother smokes and had treatment for a cancer that was unrelated to her smoking, this is how i know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Long Tooth wrote:

Quote:
my grandparents smoked 60 a day for 70 years, one passed away aged 94 and the other 89. i know friends whose parents have been mowed down by cars.

i guess you have neglacted to mention the natural grown tobacco. The stuff people grow to smoke themselves, to relieve the stress of the day. No heart attacks from stress for them.

Still i guess if people want to smoke the natural grown tobacco in public places then a move where such freedoms still exist is the route to go.

one point of caution. a friends father has been a non smoker all his life, hes now 70, always stayed away from pubs with smoke etc. he recently went to the doctors and described his symptoms. the doctor immedietly replied that he should stop smoking!!!!!!!!


I am sorry to hear both your grandparents died so prematurely due to smoking, if only they hadn't smoked, chances are they'd be around a lot longer.

Of course it isn't cars that kill people, it is the driver behind the wheel. Add to that, many pedestrian based accidents are where someone steps out in front on a vehicle travelling below the legal limit, so they are to blame not the driver. My wife hit a drunk back in 1989 - he ran straight out of a pub door and across the road. She was doing about 25mph.

I note also that the comparison card is still in play. Comparing a method of generating power to drug taking is bizarre - perhaps Gary Glitter should have included that kangaroo skin is being turned into training shoes in his defence?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Other Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group