Thanks! And the same right back at ya.
----- Original Message ---- From: Ode Coyote <odecoy...@windstream.net> To: silver-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 7:47:54 AM Subject: Re: CS>More on Cell-Phone and Cell-Tower radiation Somebody with some common sense...right ON Dick. ..a "keeper" Ode At 12:39 PM 4/20/2010 -0700, you wrote: > > Do the research > > Unfortunately, it is hard or impossible to prove a negative, and for every > theory out there, whether crackpot or legitimate, there seems to be some > "research" that proves the theory true. If I believed all the research out > there, I would drive myself crazy trying to avoid all the dangerous things in > this world. Or I would live a short miserable life and die early of hunger, > thirst and utter boredom. > > My parents went for years drinking decaf coffee because caffeine was bad for > you, then they found out decaf was worse. They went for years avoiding eggs > because they were bad for you, now eggs aren't bad any more. After seeing so > many bad things become ok years later, and so many government-sanctioned > "good" things be found to be bad, I'm not prepared to take anything at face > value, especially if it comes from government, and second if it comes from > "research studies", which can be twisted, bent, or just plain broken, by > anybody with the money to commission them and a preconceived idea of what the > "studies" will prove. > > Even the most "obvious" facts of modern life, accepted almost universally by > everyone without question, can be based on blatantly bad science or > statistics. Take for example the claim that smoking kills 500,000 people a > year because it causes heart disease, which is the nation's biggest killer. > Is that true? I have no doubt that smoking is bad for people, but ... is it > That bad? > > To answer that question I looked in some of those Information Please almanac > books that give tons of statistics, including causes of death in the US by > category: heart disease, cancer, accidents, etc. -- 50 some categories, and > sure enough, cardio-vascular disease was right up there at the top of the > list by a mile. But ... something is missing from all those lists. Look > long enough and you might see it too, but it is easy to miss, because it IS > NOT THERE: According to our illustrious government, nobody dies of old age! > What a miracle that is! The government has cured OLD AGE! Must be, since > they claim that nobody dies from it. > > My guess is simply that "old age" is not something doctors are allowed to > enter on a death certificate as a cause of death, so they have to write > something else, and when in doubt, they put down "heart stopped' or some such > thing. But does that make for another death from heart disease? obviously > not. > > So how many of those are there? > > To answer that question i sent for a publication by the National Safety > Council, which resides in Chicago, and which is the source, along with > National Department of Health and Human Services (a few years ago) of almost > all the information in the statistical almanac books. NSC sent me a little > booklet that contained, among many other things, a graph of cardio-vascular > death rates vs age. Sure enough, the numbers were very low right up to the > late 60s or early 70s, when they started to ramp up, reaching a sharp peak > around 80, then dropping down again. > > Where are all the "heart disease" deaths at other stages of life? Not to be > found in that graph, that's for sure. But then again, the only way to find > that tidbit of information was to buy a little pamphlet for $25 (in 1990), > from the National Safety Council, which by the way is an independent > corporation in Chicago, chartered by and overseen by -- US Congress. Ok, so > now we know where the numbers, and the lies, are coming from for this issue. > > Don't even get me started on drinking and driving.... > > Dick > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Del <d...@altsystem.com> > To: silver-list@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, April 20, 2010 2:41:00 PM > Subject: Re: CS>More on Cell-Phone and Cell-Tower radiation > > If you sit next to a Wi-Fi base unit, you are absorbing more radiation than > my electrosmog detector could measure (pegged it at max). > Likewise if you sit in front of a cordless phone base unit. > Likewise if you stay in the same room with an operating microwave oven. > Likewise when you key your cell phone or cordless laptop (some are worse than > others, iphone probably worst of all). > If you are within 900 feet or so of an operating tower, you burn slowly > rather than quickly. > Over many years the damage mounts up, because the radiation is unrelenting, > 24/7, and the damage is cumulative. > There are many reports of various illnesses (mostly cancer) in the vicinity > of these towers after years of exposure. > There are also plenty of in vitro studies that have demonstrated cellular > damage from tower exposure. > Do the research. You might reevaluate. > > Del > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org > > Unsubscribe: > <mailto:silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe> > Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/silver-list@eskimo.com/maillist.html > > Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com> > List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:mdev...@eskimo.com>
