Philosophy Now Forum

The answer is no according to this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 202040.htm

PhilX

I'm puzzled at your daily dose of contentless citing of links which have basically no information to work on.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled at your daily dose of contentless citing of links which have basically no information to work on.

Write ScienceDaily and let them know what you have said here. Tell them what information you're looking for.

PhilX

Got a philosophical point to make? Or just more pointless link posting.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The answer is no according to this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 202040.htm

PhilX

Whew! I've had a lot of CT scans and and X-rays and radiation this past year because of cancer.

Arising_uk wrote:Got a philosophical point to make? Or just more pointless link posting.

Are you interested in a mere opinion or an informed opinion?

PhilX

Your opinion would do rather than this endless litany of how you spend your time.

My opinion is it can happen. I know that cosmic rays are said to cause mutations. If the X-rays and CT scans have a threshhold where they're too weak to cause cancer, then let that threshhold be stated.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled at your daily dose of contentless citing of links which have basically no information to work on.

Write ScienceDaily and let them know what you have said here. Tell them what information you're looking for.

PhilX

I doubt that Comic Book bunch of ex-National Inquirer journos have a fucking clue.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:My opinion is it can happen. I know that cosmic rays are said to cause mutations. If the X-rays and CT scans have a threshhold where they're too weak to cause cancer, then let that threshhold be stated.

PhilX

So where's your evidence?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:My opinion is it can happen. I know that cosmic rays are said to cause mutations. If the X-rays and CT scans have a threshhold where they're too weak to cause cancer, then let that threshhold be stated.

PhilX

So where's your evidence?

I'll list a couple of links with pdfs:

http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/

Also note that causes are nearly impossible to prove (from Wiki) as there can be many causes of cancer. In the meantime, ACS and Mayo are reputable sources of evidence.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20032378

PhilX

Let's zap you and find out...

The Inglorious One wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The answer is no according to this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 202040.htm

PhilX

Whew! I've had a lot of CT scans and and X-rays and radiation this past year because of cancer.

How's it going?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: If the X-rays and CT scans have a threshhold where they're too weak to cause cancer, then let that threshhold be stated.

PhilX

The no risk, low threshold argument is weak.
The idea that no number of low threshold risks, can cause no cancer is refuted by cigarettes.
A single cig can cause no cancer, neither can 10, nor ten a day, nor ten a day for fifty years.
Obviously the evidence is against this.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The answer is no according to this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 202040.htm

PhilX

Whew! I've had a lot of CT scans and and X-rays and radiation this past year because of cancer.

How's it going?

Clean so far. But I lost my prostrate and a kidney to cancer. Thanks for asking.