Maybe the cancer rates have been rising, because the cancer DETECTION has been rising. It isn't a cancer death, if cancer isn't detected. So all the deaths before Chernobyl were 'natural causes' etc. When you start heavily screening for cancer, then, yes you find lots of cancer deaths, but then by that token the 'old age' deaths go down. It's the same deaths, just counted differently. From what I remmeber, the problems in the area, most of the deaths, were from poor healthcare and nutrition, both of which cancer finds 'easy targets'.
Here's the thing. They did an examination of people who were exposed, and those that weren't (a control group) and the incidents of Cancer? about the same.
The problem with 'everyone knows' or 'folk wisdom', is that it's heavy on the folk, and light on the 'wisdom'
Of course, the fact that the Banana counter at Walmart is actually above the 'allowable' limit might have something to do with it.
The limit isn't about safety, it's about placating the ignorant. 1000x LEGAL limit is still what, 100x SAFE limit. There's a BIG difference between them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the cancer rates have been rising, because the cancer DETECTION has been rising. It isn't a cancer death, if cancer isn't detected. So all the deaths before Chernobyl were 'natural causes' etc. When you start heavily screening for cancer, then, yes you find lots of cancer deaths, but then by that token the 'old age' deaths go down. It's the same deaths, just counted differently.
From what I remmeber, the problems in the area, most of the deaths, were from poor healthcare and nutrition, both of which cancer finds 'easy targets'.
Here's the thing. They did an examination of people who were exposed, and those that weren't (a control group) and the incidents of Cancer? about the same.
The problem with 'everyone knows' or 'folk wisdom', is that it's heavy on the folk, and light on the 'wisdom'
Of course, the fact that the Banana counter at Walmart is actually above the 'allowable' limit might have something to do with it. The limit isn't about safety, it's about placating the ignorant. 1000x LEGAL limit is still what, 100x SAFE limit. There's a BIG difference between them.
This story, is basically a reprint of a story from last week. Not exactly new any more http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-snags-google-downloading-torrents-threatens-to-disconnect-110205/
If you look closely at the bill, it's actually usefull to shutdown sites that contain classified documents too, such as ooh Wikileaks... That, I think, is the real target. http://ktetch.blogspot.com/2010/09/us-senators-in-big-copyrights-pocket.html
There are better ways to do it, pull via DHT for instance
Maybe someone with a little insight into how BitTorrent works could comment on the rigour of their methodoly?
I did comment on it. You can read it here http://ktetch.blogspot.com/2010/07/ars-forgets-how-torrents-work-cites.html i've been working on, and researching with torrents since 03. TorrentFreak has also covered things http://torrentfreak.com/tech-news-sites-tout-misleading-bittorrent-piracy-study-100724/ They make much the same points. I'm working on a study of my own now, one that avoids tracker bias, by not using trackers as a selection method.