Individual Entry

Brass Knuckle Blogs



Useful Links









Add to Technorati Favorites

[Valid RSS]

NucleusCMS
Nucleus CMS v3.24



template by i-marco's choice

Dynamic Drive

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Valid CSS


Excuse Me For Asking

by: Debra

But shouldn't the citizens be the ones getting the "loans" instead of the automakers, bankers and mortgage companies?  Isn't the crisis because people can't pay their bills and therefore they can't buy the cars or make the house payments?  Or could it be that the automakers didn't make products that consumers needed? 

Meanwhile the babbling Bush keeps making promises to help out the guys who didn't plan for anything except themselves making a profit off of the average consumer.  Bush says he's working hard on economic turmoil.  Well, he's succeeded.  It almost cracks me up how short-sighted people have been for the last twenty eight years.  Nobody is propping me up except for a few people with big hearts.   If you offshore jobs to countries outside of the United States, eventually there won't be enough people with jobs inside the United States to be able to pay their bills.  So, they relaxed the credit rules and the economy was humming along nicely for a little while.  Now, just like falling off a building, the sudden stop at the end is a real killer.

If there is no such thing as a safe tan, how come people didn't have skin cancers throughout the ages?  If they weren't hunting for food, they were planting it.  People used to be outside from sun up to sundown.  Yes they died of cancer, but rarely was it a skin cancer.  Usually it was something that people couldn't see that killed them, like TB, stomach, colon or liver cancer.  You don't suppose that we've done something to the environment that caused the explosion of cancer in our lifetimes, do you?

Good grief!  I thought our representatives in Congress were lapdogs, but they have nothing on California's legislature.  This idea that taxes aren't needed for the public good is foolish.  For those of us who grew up here in the sixties and seventies and had one of the best school systems in the country to now not want to pay taxes so that today's children have the same opportunities as their parents, isn't foolish, it's stupid.  We have had wildfires burning out of control because there was neither the manpower, money or equipment to fight them quickly and at the same time reduced services to those who need it just so millionaires don't have to pay their fair share for enjoying all the benefits this state had to offer.  No wonder the cities are dividing into the rich and poor sides of town.  And this time it is without the railroad tracks showing the demarcation line.

On a personal note, thank you to those who donated to help my mom and myself.  Every dime is greatly appreciated.  Mom is aware that we are in trouble and it seems to have accelerated some aspects of her dementia along with making her even more stubborn.  If we become homeless we lose all of the programs that are helping to keep her out of a convalescent home where they send you to die and she loses any illusion of autonomy.  I would like to keep her away from that option as long as possible.  In other words, until she no longer recognizes me or the dogs, or dies at home as peacefully as possible.

Debsweb


Technorati & Delicious tags · · Delicious & Technorati tags

19 comments:

"...shouldn't the citizens be the ones getting the "loans"..."

Automakers, bankers, and mortgage companies give better head than citizens.
by: Peter of Lone Tree (contact) - 18 Sep '08 - 17:09
You don't suppose that we've done something to the environment that caused the explosion of cancer in our lifetimes, do you?

Is it something in the environment? Or... Is it a change in our behavior. Your link says nothing of pollution or environmental damage. Yes, people used to be "outside from sun up to sundown", but that was on a routine basis. The body can much better manage some constant UV exposure (i.e. people that were outside all day were not in it for the tan) than sudden very intense UV exposure on more regularly non-exposed skin. Deadly cancer is very much more common with short intense exposure than the constant, lower level exposure that the hunter/planters were exposed to. Today's population that does not spend all day outside wants the quick tan and given the opportunity, will lie out in the sun and get intense full body exposure to the UV that their skin in not used to like the hunter/planters' would have been.
by: Newbie (contact) - 18 Sep '08 - 20:19
Good post, Deb. One would think that helping out the citizens would help improve the economy, and the stupid auto companies who have their heads in the sand about making better vehicles, if the people had more money to work with.

The failed policies of the neo-con regime have just about destroyed this country. And now they want to stay in power to finish it off?

I've only read a few articles about the CA budget... but I don't really understand why Ahnuld wants to veto it. I guess having "no budget" is a better thing? Phbbbbtht!

I am hoping that things will get better for you.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 18 Sep '08 - 20:44
"The body can much better manage some constant UV exposure (i.e. people that were outside all day were not in it for the tan) ..."

Nope. Wrong again.

UV RADIATION EFFECTS ON HUMAN SKIN SKIN CANCER FACTS (pdf)

EPA SunWise: Health Effects of UV Radiation:

Since the appearance of an ozone hole over the Antarctic in the early 1980s, Americans have become aware of the health threats posed by ozone depletion, which decreases our atmosphere's natural protection from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. This fact sheet provides a quick overview of the major health problems linked to overexposure to UV radiation:

* Skin Cancer (melanoma and nonmelanoma)

* Premature aging of the skin and other skin problems

* Cataracts and other eye damage

* Immune system suppression


An Introduction to Skin Cancer:

Very simply, sunburn and UV light can damage your skin, and this damage can lead to skin cancer. There are of course other determining factors, including your heredity and the environment you live in. However, both the total amount of sun received over the years, and overexposure resulting in sunburn can cause skin cancer.

Ultraviolet Radiation:

The Cancer link The principle danger of skin cancer is to light-skinned peoples. A 1% decrease in the ozone layer will cause a estimated 2% increase in UV-B irradiation; it is estimated that this will lead to a 4% increase in basal carcinomas and 6% increase in squamous-cell carcinomas. [Graedel & Crutzen]. 90% of the skin carcinomas are attributed to UV-B exposure [Wayne] and the chemical mechanism by which it causes skin cancer has been identified [Tevini]. [snip] One undisputed effect of long-term sun exposure is the premature aging of the skin due to both UV-A, UV-B and UV-C. Even careful tanning kills skin cells, damages DNA and causes permanent changes in skin connective tissue which leads to wrinkle formation in later life. There is no such thing as a safe tan.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 18 Sep '08 - 21:05
So you are saying that there is no possible way at all that the increase is skin cancer is related in any way to the increase in most intense sun exposure that has been on the increase during the past 50+ years?

Nope. Wrong again./i]

No, not wrong. Indeed, the body does manage much better with ongoing lower lever exposure to UV than to shorter very intense exposures (especially when the body is not used to the UV). Your links that you used to prove me wrong say nothing about this at all. They are nice general references to skin caner, but do not talk much about the biological compensatory mechanisms and its variations with duration and intensity of UV exposure.

I do not and did not say that the amount of ozone did not affect the incidence of skin cancer. If you read my post from 18 Sep '08 - 20:19, you would know that I asked if a "change in our behavior" could have any bearing on the increase. I forgive you for not noticing this as your prime drive when seeing me post anything would appear to be to call me names and post "fail" to whatever I have posted regardless of supporting references.

From your links:
http://cires.colorado.edu/websites/uv/resources/skincan_final.pdf

[i]Studies since the mid-1980s have suggested that melanoma is likely associated with a severe sunburn or other acute UV-B or UV-A exposure.


Look at that. Severe sunburn or acute exposure. Things that are not part of chronic exposure with depleted ozone, but rather associated with short tanning periods or vacation exposure. That would appear to support my supposition. Thanks for the help.
by: Newbie (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 08:59
I posted links to back up my comment. You didn't.
However, both the total amount of sun received over the years, and overexposure resulting in sunburn can cause skin cancer.
90% of the skin carcinomas are attributed to UV-B exposure ... and the chemical mechanism by which it causes skin cancer has been identified
Thanks for playing. Sorry, you lose.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 11:08
My comment was a question. Please see 18 Sep '08 - 20:19

I could be wrong, but is it standard to post supporting references when asking a question? Would it not be more typical to post references only when posting an answer?

BTW, thanks for posting some links to support my theory.
by: Newbie. (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 11:12
Very simply, sunburn and UV light can damage your skin, and this damage can lead to skin cancer. There are of course other determining factors, including your heredity and the environment you live in.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 11:18
Thank you for re-posting support for my theory about human behavior being a factor in the skin cancer rate. But, next time, you done have to post supporting links for me if you don't want to.
by: Newbie (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 13:45
Thanks for playing the Twist and Spin Troll Game, sorry you're a loser.

As a consolation prize, here's a parting gift: rdman
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 15:00
Spin? Let's see. Ask a question. Have someone post links that support the topic of the question. Get called a spinner. Wow. Let's try some logic here. That and how about Debra answering the question that was posted in response to her comment rather that the one who can not help but say, blah blah spin blah blah fail...
by: Newbie (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 15:57
Debra's question was
You don't suppose that we've done something to the environment that caused the explosion of cancer in our lifetimes, do you?
Your question was
Is it something in the environment?
The links show that changes to the ozone environment, which once better protected people from getting too much UV light, have resulted in increased cases of skin cancer, and that this increased exposure, exposure over years, and overexposure to UV rays are responsible for causing cancers.

You said that
The body can much better manage some constant UV exposure
when it IS UV exposure, and the exposure
over the years, and overexposure
and
other determining factors, including your heredity and the environment
that cause cancer.
Very simply, sunburn and UV light can damage your skin, and this damage can lead to skin cancer.
I think that Debra doesn't even want to bother with addressing your infernal stupidity. She has repeatedly told you to stay off her threads, too.

You still lose.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 19 Sep '08 - 16:17
Excuse me Newbie, I've just spent eleven hours on my feet to earn $50. Which I'm sure you can figure out is less than $5 an hour, $2.20 to be exact.

I'm tired, I'm broke and I just don't have the energy to be playing petty games with someone who contributes nothing to my life but irritation.

That would be you. train2
by: Debra (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 03:54
re: 16:17

Lose. LOL. My question was not "Is it something in the environment" as you said.

My question was, "Is it a change in our behavior". The environmental question was Debra's.

Try re-reading the original post.

The links show that changes to the ozone environment, which once better protected people from getting too much UV light, have resulted in increased cases of skin cancer, and that this increased exposure, exposure over years, and overexposure to UV rays are responsible for causing cancers.

As I have already stated, but you apparently missed, I do not deny any effect from long term exposure to UV or decreased ozone levels. You should try re-reading that also.

My intent was not to discount Debra's environmental comment, but to point out that the environmental effect of humans is not the ONLY reason for the increased incidence of skin cancer. You links support this. It's there and easily spelled out for you.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the this, so I will break it down for you.
Short periods of intense UV exposure are very damaging to the skin cells, more so than mild long term exposure. This damage often times does not manifest itself as cancer for many years or decades.

The general population started to have an increased trend toward relishing a deep tan in the recent past, say 50+ years. While people spent more time outside trying for that quick, look good tan, they did not used sun screen in large amounts until fairly recently. This lead to increased incidence of sunburns which lead to an increased incedence or skin cancer years later.

The study of population medicine and statistical epidemiology can be difficult for those uneducated in the field. Therefore, I can't blame you for your confusion.
by: Newbie (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 09:12
You're an idiot. Questions end with a question mark. rdman
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 11:52
Wow. That one typo that was so obviously a question tripped you up for this many days. Now that you know that the "." should have been a "?", you will probably be very embarrassed that you were so confused and kept posting links that supported my theory. Sorry about that typo of mine.
by: Newbie (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 12:37
Nice try.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 13:08
Lose.

No, it was not a try. I really did have a typo when I typed a period instead of a question mark. It was a simple mistake that I made. Anyone reading it should have instantly known that I was typing a question by the order of the words. It's very basic English. I seem to have confused you again. Here is the sentence:

"Is it a change in our behavior."

Yes, there should be a question mark after it. That was an error on my part. However, when a sentence begins with "is it", that would generally denote a questioning or interrogative sentence. I hope that help you to understand.

As for the question itself... It would appear to be, yes. Thanks for the supporting links.
by: Newbie (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 14:28
Yawn.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 20 Sep '08 - 15:10



This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
«Return to the Main Page of Big Brass Blog

Meta Information:

Title: Excuse Me For Asking
Date posted: 18 Sep '08 - 12:28
No Trackbacks
Filed under: General
Good Karma: 3 (vote)
Bad Karma: 1 (vote)
Next entry: » Circus Express
Previous entry: « Hardballin'

Frontpage
:
:

Navigation

  Today
  Archives
  Contact

Calendar

Search


Blog Headlines

Advertisements

Dark Wraith's Bookstore

♦           ♦           ♦
Free Sound Effects
Download Free Sound Effects from AudioMicro.
♦           ♦           ♦

News

Diversions

In the News

Quote of the Day