Cancer is a product of industrial environment

[volinbham]

What risk is needed exactly? Is that why the Soviet built 10,000 nuclear missiles?

The Soviets commandeered capital to produce what they saw fit. If you aren't advocating central planning then you have to account for some incentive to take on the risk of investment in production.

Industrialization, as I've said several times now, is the type of application of technology / science. It is perfectly possible to apply this in different ways.

As best as I can tell you are anti-concentration of production resources when you say industrialized. Given that, the fruits of industrialization (affordable and widespread products and services) are things you wish to preserve but cannot explain how they would be made available.

There is a reason that computers are affordable. Virtually every motherboard is built by one of a few organizations in China. That is extreme concentration that yields widely available product. You want the world to have computers? If so, better hop on the industrialization train.

 

[sjt18]

We are all college educated (or getting one), and in the upper 20% of American society.

Which means 80% of the nation is well below our level. There is a SIZEABLE American underclass.

Why is it that liberals who supposedly detest inequality and classification consistently use class distinction and jealousy to sell their ideas?

What you just stated is true of every single country in the world. The uniqueness of America has been the freedom to move from one level to another by ingenuity and honest work... in spite of Progressive efforts to eliminate class by forming two classes... those who rule and those who are ruled (for their own good of course).

Industrialization DID NOT produce these benefits.

Industrialization has generated most of the wealth we collectively enjoy. We have attained levels of wealth that pre-industrial societies could not even conceive much less attain.

Please explain to us how your computer could have been built or built cheaply enough for you to buy without industrial, standard production.

A revolution in thinking, moving away from a faith-based view of the world, and observing and measuring the real world outside the backdoor produced these benefits. This revolution happened before industrialization, and was required FOR it.

Ah, so now it is a matter of religion being the problem that held mankind back.

And, the first 150 years should demonstrate how patently false it is. By almost every metric, the vast majority pulled into Industrialization - worse health, devastated familes, oppression, and squalor everywhere. Social revolutions ameliorated the true face of industrialization.

Coincidence does not equal causation.

So the "faith based view of the world" was the problem... but those were the good ol' days. "Enlightenment" and then industrialization come and people's lives are terrible... gotcha, I think.

This is why folks here scoff at you gibbs. Your views are neither consistent with the world we all live in nor are they consistent with themselves.

 

[sjt18]

As best as I can tell you are anti-concentration of production resources when you say industrialized. Given that, the fruits of industrialization (affordable and widespread products and services) are things you wish to preserve but cannot explain how they would be made available.

There is a reason that computers are affordable. Virtually every motherboard is built by one of a few organizations in China. That is extreme concentration that yields widely available product. You want the world to have computers? If so, better hop on the industrialization train.

Best I can tell, gibbs "real out the back door view of the world" says that you can tax away capital as much as you want without having an impact on wealth production and that you really do not need an efficient means of production just "enlightenment" and a wish.

 

[NEO]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is having a hard time understanding exactly what he believes.

 

[kptvol]

I never got my proof that childhood cancer is on the rise.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I never got my proof that childhood cancer is on the rise.

Sure you did. He said it about four times and followed up by saying the data is clear and conclusive. What else do you want?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

A superminority opinion if ever there was one.

I'm sure several Nobel Laureates of economics agree with you. :hi:

ROR
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Vol423]

Sure you did. He said it about four times and followed up by saying the data is clear and conclusive. What else do you want?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Gibbs also conveniently ignores the fact that even IF data showed that cancer were on the rise it is probably FAR more due to the increased prevalence of DETECTION of cancer today due to the remarkable improvements in diagnostic capabilities.

 

[utgibbs]

I never got my proof that childhood cancer is on the rise.

It was in the exec summary of the pdf from the President's commission:

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

Despite overall decreases in incidence and mortality, cancer continues to shatter and steal the lives of Americans. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.

You being wrong is board norm. I think the servers might explode on the day the blind hog picks up an acorn.

Game, Set, and Match.

 

[utgibbs]

Gibbs also conveniently ignores the fact that even IF data showed that cancer were on the rise it is probably FAR more due to the increased prevalence of DETECTION of cancer today due to the remarkable improvements in diagnostic capabilities.

Except we are applying those detection techniques to the tissues of antiquity, tissues in which cancer is preserved better than normal tissues.

And it just ain't there.

 

[utgibbs]

Sure you did. He said it about four times and followed up by saying the data is clear and conclusive. What else do you want?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

As GoF emerius, you really should lead your wards better. They live behind the woodshed. And although I find embarassing them mildly entertaining, I reach a point of real pity at times.

Despite overall decreases in incidence and mortality, cancer continues to shatter and steal the lives of Americans. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.

Join us one day in the supermajority.

 

[overseasorange2]

It's those golden Arches.

 

[kptvol]

It was in the exec summary of the pdf from the President's commission:

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf



You being wrong is board norm. I think the servers might explode on the day the blind hog picks up an acorn.

Game, Set, and Match.

Hard hitting stuff there. I like how you decided to highlight a sentence that doesn't actually say what you claim it does, while simultaneously admitting environmental factors aren't known to have caused any increase. I wouldn't be surprised if the report actually does claim what you say, but you selecting that particular quote is hilarious.

The National Cancer Institute reports a 0.0034% increase in childhood cancer incidence over the last 30 years with over a 50% decrease in mortality.

 

[overseasorange2]

Hard hitting stuff there. I like how you decided to highlight a sentence that doesn't actually say what you claim it does, while simultaneously admitting environmental factors aren't known to have caused any increase. I wouldn't be surprised if the report actually does claim what you say, but you selecting that particular quote is hilarious.

The National Cancer Institute reports a 0.0034% increase in childhood cancer incidence over the last 30 years with over a 50% decrease in mortality.

Wow, now I am really concerned, that's an additional 3.4 cases per 100,000.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It was in the exec summary of the pdf from the President's commission:

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf



You being wrong is board norm. I think the servers might explode on the day the blind hog picks up an acorn.

Game, Set, and Match.

The opening sentence clearly undermines your whole point, yet you took the last sentence, which is limited to certain types of cancer, and limits that to some number fewer which are MORE prevalent in children, then used that to support yor dead wrong point.

Now I understand why you say so much of the silly crap that you say. You simply can't read, ignore what doesn't fit your goofball worldview or are dumb as a hammer.

I love when you step out hard in interpreting data or language. Very entertaining.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

Hard hitting stuff there. I like how you decided to highlight a sentence that doesn't actually say what you claim it does, while simultaneously admitting environmental factors aren't known to have caused any increase. I wouldn't be surprised if the report actually does claim what you say, but you selecting that particular quote is hilarious.

The National Cancer Institute reports a 0.0034% increase in childhood cancer incidence over the last 30 years with over a 20% decrease in mortality.

It's great we are getting better at curing a disease which became a problem in the modern era. Thank you, gifts of the Enlightenment.

Childhood cancer increasing. Thankee :hi:

Pic was too big, but it's on pg 4 of the pdf. "The changes are too rapid to be of genetic origin. Nor can these increases be explained by the advent of better diagnostic techniques... Increased incidence due to better diagnosis might be expected to cause a one-time spike in rates, but not the steady increases that have occurred in these cancers over a 30-year span."

Game, Set, and Match

 

[BigPapaVol]

It's great we are getting better at curing a disease which became a problem in the modern era. Thank you, gifts of the Enlightenment.

Childhood cancer increasing. Thankee :hi:

Pic was too big.

No it isn't. Our detection capacity would way more than explain that tiny jump.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[overseasorange2]

The "gift of enlightment" has also gotten rid of other diseases that killed allot of people in the old days.

 

[utgibbs]

The opening sentence clearly undermines your whole point, yet you took the last sentence, which is limited to certain types of cancer, and limits that to some number fewer which are MORE prevalent in children, then used that to support yor dead wrong point.

Now I understand why you say so much of the silly crap that you say. You simply can't read, ignore what doesn't fit your goofball worldview or are dumb as a hammer.

I love when you step out hard in interpreting data or language. Very entertaining.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The opening sentence ONLY STRENGTHENS MY POINT! Thank you, social revolutions which give us THE CLEAN AIR ACT. Thank you gifts of the Enlightenment which, despite corporate propaganda, shows that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen.
Great show of ignorance and lack of reading skills, BPV.

:double epic Jean Luc Piccard facepalm:

Childhood rates are increasing. Anyone who thinks it's great (agentorange2) more kids are getting cancer should not be running free in civil society. You need help. My gosh, I've never seen someone debase themselves as thoroughly as that. FOR SHAME!

You should mentor your wards better. Now you and your wards are not only getting woodshed beatings, your ridiculous acolytes are debauching themselves on the site cheerleading increases in childhood cancers!

 

[utgibbs]

No it isn't. Our detection capacity would way more than explain that tiny jump.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It doesn't explain the gap between antiquity and today. :hi:

Join us one day in the supermajority.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It doesn't explain the gap between antiquity and today. :hi:

Join us one day in the supermajority.

How senseless. You just had your ass handed to you because can't read. Your response: no YOU can't read, and move quickly away from your idiotic point about cancer increasing in children to some lunacy about antiquity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

No it isn't. Our detection capacity would way more than explain that tiny jump.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Wrong again.

p4

"The changes are too rapid to be of genetic origin. Nor can these increases be explained by the advent of better diagnostic techniques... Increased incidence due to better diagnosis might be expected to cause a one-time spike in rates, but not the steady increases that have occurred in these cancers over a 30-year span."

Join us one day in the supermajority. And bone up on your reading skills, please.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The opening sentence ONLY STRENGTHENS MY POINT! Thank you, social revolutions which give us THE CLEAN AIR ACT. Thank you gifts of the Enlightenment which, despite corporate propaganda, shows that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen.
Great show of ignorance and lack of reading skills, BPV.

:double epic Jean Luc Piccard facepalm:

Childhood rates are increasing. Anyone who thinks it's great (agentorange2) more kids are getting cancer should not be running free in civil society. You need help. My gosh, I've never seen someone debase themselves as thoroughly as that. FOR SHAME!

You should mentor your wards better. Now you and your wards are not only getting woodshed beatings, your ridiculous acolytes are debauching themselves on the site cheerleading increases in childhood cancers!

Best bet when you look dumb as hell is to stick to silliness like facepalms. You still look idiotic, but that doesn't require more digging or prof that you just make up the crap that you say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

How senseless. You just had your ass handed to you because can't read. Your response: no YOU can't read, and move quickly away from your idiotic point about cancer increasing in children to some lunacy about antiquity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

:lolabove:

No, BPV. You got your azz handed to you again. And taken behind the woodshed.

"The changes are too rapid to be of genetic origin. Nor can these increases be explained by the advent of better diagnostic techniques... Increased incidence due to better diagnosis might be expected to cause a one-time spike in rates, but not the steady increases that have occurred in these cancers over a 30-year span."

Get used to mediocrity. Join us in the supermajority, won't you?

 

[BigPapaVol]

:lolabove:

No, BPV. You got your azz handed to you again. And taken behind the woodshed.



Get used to mediocrity. Join us in the supermajority, won't you?

At least this one isn't getting old. You know, the one where you just say it and that makes it so. That's proven absolutely genius and overwhelmingly effective over time. FYI, that's exactly the one that has made you a punchline here.

And again, you're using the limited number which are prevalent in kids and then taking out of context to try and make your wrong point. The author is not remotely tying those cancers to any increase. You're picking and choosing snippets to try and make your lunacy disappear, but that won't be happening here.


Posted via VolNation Mobile