OT - Before I Die ( Part 1) - cobol
This is a discussion on OT - Before I Die ( Part 1) - cobol ; [email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
A few times over the years there have been posts
referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
those discussions until several months ago. I ...
-
OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
[email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
A few times over the years there have been posts
referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
those discussions until several months ago. I did this,
in part, because I was attempting to get to professional
researchers in an effort to get the [US] government to
re-evaluate its claim. I tried first with a member of
Congress, hoping to be put in touch a professional.
When that failed, I tried to get into court using legal
assitance to force the government to evaluate my
findings. Last week, I received a form letter declining
legal assistance. Since I can't seem to get into court,
you are my jury.
On January 1, 1992, after hearing a news item
concerning a law suit against tobacco companies,
I decided to investigate the claim that smoking causes
lung cancer. For a few weeks I read articles about
cancer and reviewed various claims about what causes
various types of cancer. After that I continued by reading
the occasional magazine article and generally paying
attention to what others claimed, all the while rejecting
the claim that smoking causes lung cancer.
In April 1994, I heard a news item that said "Today, the
[US] National Instututes of Health reported an increase
in the lung cancer rate among female smokers. No
expanation was given." Immediately, the word "radiation"
came to mind. This was followed by the explanation ,
"During the late 1980's there was an increased awareness
of breast cancer. This led more females, including more
female smokers, to get mammograms. Stray x-radiation
from the mammograms caused the lung cancer." It then
follows that if an increase in radiation exposure caused
the increase in cancer, then it is a cause of lung cancer.
[As I would work it out later, the "increased awareness"
occurred in October 1988, the increased exposure was
during 1989, the increased cancer was 1993, and reported
in 1994.]
To this day, I have no idea why those words came to mind.
For a couple years, I tried occassionaly to understand why
but finally gave up.
Then in Octeber 1997, my father (now deceased) was
diagnosed with bladder cancer. The cancer occurred 44
months after exposure to radiation. This was his second
incident. The first was 12 years earlier and also occurred
about 4 years after a visit to a chiropractor, where, I
assume, a spinal x-ray was taken.
Through the end of 2000, there were a other things that I
saw or heard that suggested radiation preceded cancer but
no hard evidence. In 2001, I decided to try to understand
how radiation might cause lung cancer. Once again, I chose
to just read a lot of articles about x-rays, chemicals, tobacco,
etc., to see if I could find the connection.
On the morning of September 2, 2001, I sat, as I had been
doing every morning for months, at my computer to spend
some time just thinking about the "how". On that morning, the
lyrics at the end of the Moody Blues song "Nights in White
Satin" kept repeating in my head.
Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is gray and yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
As these lyrics repeated, I was looking at the red mouse
pad next to my keyboard. I occurred to me that a red
mouse pad is not red when there is no light shining on it.
Next I got a flashlight, aimed it at the mouse pad, and
pressed the switch. The mouse pad lit up as almost
white. That is when I understood: When x-rays pass
through the lungs, it strikes the residue of tobacco smoke
lining the lungs stimulting unltra-violet radiation. It is the
untra-violet that causes the damage that leads to cancer.
The explanation is simple chemistry but, by unconsciously
simulating an x-ray machine, it became clear.
By the begining of 2002, I had this understanding. The
accumulation, in the lungs, of the residue of tobacco smoke
creates a condition that makes certain forms of radiation
hazardous. These include x-rays and particle emissions
from radon. When cancer occurs from x-ray exposure,
it occurs at nearly four years after exposure.
But this understanding is a hypothesis based on little
hard evidence. Nonetheless, I tried to get the [US]
government to recognize this alternative to its claim.
Instead, I got this from he who was elected to
represent me. "I speculate that while radiation passing
through lung tissue may get absorbed by the buildup of
tobacco smoke, as you suggest, and then cause cell
mutation, it is still the tobacco smoke, not the radiation
from x-rays, that is the proximate cause of lung cancer."
In mid-October 2002, I turned my attention to
documents where I might find more evidence. The
first of these is the American Cancer Society report,
"Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts &
Figures 2002".
< http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CPED2002PWSecured.pdf >
The chart on page 4 shows some anomalies.
Looking at 1948, there is an intermediate peak for
lung cancer deaths for both men and women. This is
preceded by a rise above trend, which for men started
in 1946 and for women 1947 (maybe 1946). What this
suggests is a three year event occurring four years
earlier (1942-44). The [US] buildup for WWII fits
that time frame. Those volunteering to serve (or males
being drafted) underwent physical examinations to
determine their fitness. A passing acquaintance had
mentioned that he was ordered to report for the draft
a few times, and each time, he was given a chest
x-ray, which revealed the presence of a congentital
heart defect. This disqualified him for service. It also
suggests the general use of chest x-rays as part of
physical examinations. Some in their late-30s and 40s,
who were entering the service, would have had the
residue of tobacco smoke in their lungs.
There is a surge in 1968 for women. "1963: The first
randomized controlled trial of screening by the Health
Insurance Plan of New York finds mammography
reduces the 5-year breast cancer mortality rate by
30 percent." Thus 1964 is likely the first full year of
breast cancer screening. After the surge in 1968, rates
continue above the prior trend.
The increase in 1993 for women was given in the news
item that lead me to concentrate on x-rays.
It is not possible to determine from the line for cigarette
consumption whether smoking causes lung cancer or
smoking creates a condition that makes x-rays hazardous;
but the availablity of x-ray explanations for some of the
anomalies suggests the latter.
The second document is the American Cancer Society,
Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II), Questionaire for
Men.
< http://www.cancer.org/downloads/RES/cps_1982m.pdf >
On the first page, under History of Diseases, item 4, is
asked the number of x-ray examinations, but not the
dates of these examinations. This seems insufficient to
determine the temporal relation between x-ray exposure
and cancer incidence among those who smoke. This
means, simply, that the questionaire was designed
around similar models for both radiological and chemical
causation. My studies suggest that model for chemical
causation is flawed. That being the case, the use of surveys
based on that model to conclude that smoking causes lung
cancer are equally flawed.
The third document is "Experimental Production of
Carcinoma with Cigarette Tar". [I retrieved a copy on
October 20, 2002, from tobaccodocuments.org; but
cannot find the same file now.]
In any case, I have no problem with the experiment,
only with the conclusion. The experiment appears to
show, based on the model for chemical causation, that
the application of the residue of tobacco smoke to the
backs of mice induced skin cancer. What I notice is that
the experiment was conducted in the presence of light,
while there is no light in the lungs. Light is a form of
electromagnetic radiation (EMR), as is x-rays. To me
the equivalent is that EMR striking the residue of tobacco
smoke stimulated ultra-violet radiation, which caused
skin cancer on the mice and causes lung cancer in humans.
For the fourth item, I couldn't find a copy documenting
the experiment. The experiment showed a bonding
between BPDE, a chemical found in tobacco smoke, and
the p53 tumor suppressor gene. As I understand the
experiment, the residue of tobacco smoke smoke was
placed in a petri dish with p53 tumor suppressor cells
from mice. During the experiment, the BPDE bonded
with the cells. One comment about the experiment is
"The conclusion is inescapable: the mutations inducing
lung cancer are caused by chemicals in cigarette smoke."
Again I have no problem with the experiment, only with
the conclusion. The experiment seems to have been
conducted in the presence of light. There is no light in
the lungs, therefore the result of the experiment can not
be relied upon as naturally occurring, or merely chemical
causation.
There is a process used in the production of printed
circuit boards where an ultra-violet sensitive chemical
is applied to a copper-clad board. The board is then
exposed to ultra-violet light source. This causes a bond
between the chemical and the copper creating a liquid
that is then cleaned off the board. A similar process may
be at work in the experiment. If BPDE is ultra-violet
sensitive and other chemicals in tobacco smoke produce
ultra-violet radiation in the presence of EMR, then light
acted to precipitate the bonding process. In the lungs,
x-rays preciptate the process.
As was previously mentioned in this group, studies
concerning environmental tobacco smoke do not show
any significant coorelation to cancer. This is another
case where results do not fit the model for chemical
causation.
What is the bottom line? The model for chemical
causation is flawed. Another model that incorporates
radiation may explain more. This new model could not
include the claim that smoking causes lung cancer. Until
proper surveys are conducted to verify the temporal
relation between radiation and cancer when chemicals
are present, the benefits of that knowledge will not be
realized.
Don't be concerned about my choice for the subject line,
things can happen quickly. I have been disabled for
almost ten years now and have been unable to get
assistance with terms I find acceptable. Regardless of
what may happen, it looks like I will be off the internet
October 27th.
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
Rick Smith wrote:
> [email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
> unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
>
> A few times over the years there have been posts
> referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
> those discussions until several months ago. I did this,
> in part, because I was attempting to get to professional
> researchers in an effort to get the [US] government to
> re-evaluate its claim. I tried first with a member of
> Congress, hoping to be put in touch a professional.
> When that failed, I tried to get into court using legal
> assitance to force the government to evaluate my
> findings. Last week, I received a form letter declining
> legal assistance. Since I can't seem to get into court,
> you are my jury.
[snip]
Fascinating. But it's based entirely on an irrational fear of radiation.
This fear causes projection and the attributing of all things awful to that
which is hated.
The real cause of lung cancer in cigarette smokers comes from the paper used
to make the cigarettes!
Every one of the cancer victims who smoked cigarettes were exposed to the
burning paper. This explains, too, why some people get lung cancer who have
never smoked! At sometime in their lives, they've been exposed to paper.
We can prove this in the laboratory. Rats, when force-fed five pounds of
paper per day, develop distended stomachs and become lethargic. For
statistical evidence, consider this: Everyone who used paper before 1910 -
if still alive - has white hair and no teeth.
It must be right - it's science.
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
"HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:tLydnTr3Cpzj_WjVnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Rick Smith wrote:
>> [email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
>> unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
>>
>> A few times over the years there have been posts
>> referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
>> those discussions until several months ago. I did this,
>> in part, because I was attempting to get to professional
>> researchers in an effort to get the [US] government to
>> re-evaluate its claim. I tried first with a member of
>> Congress, hoping to be put in touch a professional.
>> When that failed, I tried to get into court using legal
>> assitance to force the government to evaluate my
>> findings. Last week, I received a form letter declining
>> legal assistance. Since I can't seem to get into court,
>> you are my jury.
>
> [snip]
>
> Fascinating. But it's based entirely on an irrational fear of radiation.
> This fear causes projection and the attributing of all things awful to
> that which is hated.
>
> The real cause of lung cancer in cigarette smokers comes from the paper
> used to make the cigarettes!
>
> Every one of the cancer victims who smoked cigarettes were exposed to the
> burning paper. This explains, too, why some people get lung cancer who
> have never smoked! At sometime in their lives, they've been exposed to
> paper.
>
> We can prove this in the laboratory. Rats, when force-fed five pounds of
> paper per day, develop distended stomachs and become lethargic. For
> statistical evidence, consider this: Everyone who used paper before 1910 -
> if still alive - has white hair and no teeth.
>
> It must be right - it's science.
>
Hmm.
October 15th, 2008.
Full Moon.....
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:16:42 -0400, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>A few times over the years there have been posts
>referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
>those discussions until several months ago.
This would be on topic in the alt.smokers newsgroup.
Try Googling "tobacco polonium". You might be surprised to find tobacco comes with a
built-in radiation source.
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
In article <VvOdnb7QUYpR2WjVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Don't be concerned about my choice for the subject line,
>things can happen quickly. I have been disabled for
>almost ten years now and have been unable to get
>assistance with terms I find acceptable. Regardless of
>what may happen, it looks like I will be off the internet
>October 27th.
What 'loooks to be', Mr Smith, at times will pass through an 'is' which
makes what 'will be' other than expected. I hope all goes well, for you
and yours.
DD
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:VvOdnb7QUYpR2WjVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet...
> [email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
> unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
<snipped very interesting thoughts regarding tobacco and lung cancer>
Much more concerned about the following...
> Don't be concerned about my choice for the subject line,
> things can happen quickly. I have been disabled for
> almost ten years now and have been unable to get
> assistance with terms I find acceptable. Regardless of
> what may happen, it looks like I will be off the internet
> October 27th.
>
Rick, I sincerely hope this just means the Internet and not the planet. If
you are refusing offered treatment for whatever your condition is,
obviously, that is your prerogative, but I would urge you to reconsider.
I lost a very dear and close friend some years back because he refused what
he considered to be an unacceptable/pointless treatment. (I was away
overseas at the time and it bothers me to this day, because I believe if I
had been here, I might have persuaded him to have the treatment.) Three
months after he died, there were some new breakthroughs that would have
saved his life. If he'd accepted treatment, his life would probably have
been prolonged long enough for him to have availed himself of the new
regimen.
The point is, that you never know what's just around the corner. I think
that waiting to see "what the Hell is going to happen next", is as valid a
reason as any other for giving Life a chance...
Your posts here will be missed, so if you decide (or even have a choice) to
stay with it a bit longer, do try and get an Internet connection... :-)
As I only have the right to speak for myself, I can tell you I have learned
much from your posts here and your insights and facility with COBOL are
beyond the ordinary. It has been a privelege to correspond.
Whatever you decide, and whatever the outcome, I for one (and I'm sure there
are many others here, although I can't speak for them), will be thinking of
you and hoping for the best.
Sincere best wishes,
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
..
>
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
"HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:tLydnTr3Cpzj_WjVnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Rick Smith wrote:
> > [email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
> > unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
> >
> > A few times over the years there have been posts
> > referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
> > those discussions until several months ago. I did this,
> > in part, because I was attempting to get to professional
> > researchers in an effort to get the [US] government to
> > re-evaluate its claim. I tried first with a member of
> > Congress, hoping to be put in touch a professional.
> > When that failed, I tried to get into court using legal
> > assitance to force the government to evaluate my
> > findings. Last week, I received a form letter declining
> > legal assistance. Since I can't seem to get into court,
> > you are my jury.
>
> [snip]
>
> Fascinating. But it's based entirely on an irrational fear of radiation.
> This fear causes projection and the attributing of all things awful to
that
> which is hated.
It is not clear to me that objective measures are
available, generally, to distinguish between the rational
and irrational fear of radiation.
I accept, as true, the statement: The use of x-rays is
generally safe. However, that statement allows for the
possibility that the use of x-rays is hazardous under
specific conditions. I have yet to see a complete, let
alone comprehensive, list of those conditions. Absent
such a list, reason is entirely personal.
For my part, I have seen evidence that x-rays cause
a reaction in the residue of tobacco smoke resulting in
cancer, thus my avoiding exposure to x-rays where the
residue may be present is rational. I have never refused
dental x-rays, because I have no reason to believe there
is a residue of tobacco smoke in those places the use of
such x-rays would reach.
Should any researcher with access to a comprehensive
patient database chose to verify my findings, they could
create a histogram of the time between x-ray exposure
and date of first treatment for cancer. There should be
a significant peak in the area of 44 to 46 months.
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:6lm4ulFd2e1cU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
> news:VvOdnb7QUYpR2WjVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet...
> > [email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
> > unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]
>
> <snipped very interesting thoughts regarding tobacco and lung cancer>
>
> Much more concerned about the following...
>
> > Don't be concerned about my choice for the subject line,
> > things can happen quickly. I have been disabled for
> > almost ten years now and have been unable to get
> > assistance with terms I find acceptable. Regardless of
> > what may happen, it looks like I will be off the internet
> > October 27th.
> >
>
> Rick, I sincerely hope this just means the Internet and not the planet. If
> you are refusing offered treatment for whatever your condition is,
> obviously, that is your prerogative, but I would urge you to reconsider.
Would I have had a space ship available to me, I would
have left this planet years ago.
My condition appears to be rationality and rationality
is not a disease to be treated. I have experienced
recurring emotional stress (anxiety and depression)
since 1973. I went through psychotherapy over a
nine year period (1979-88) with little real benefit.
I finally found therapeutic relief in 1987 when I stopped
voting. In 1993, I found even more relief (including tax
relief) by intentionally making less money. For a few
years, I symtom free. Then in December 1998, I
experienced traumatic stress (tyranny and persecution)
from the [US] Tobacco Settlement Agreement. In
March 2003, I completed my work on persecution
regarding the belief about smoking and lung cancer.
In August 2008, I completed my work on tyranny
regarding the recurring emotional stress. My
understanding what happened won't make the problem
go away. The problem is that government in the United
States is so irrational that the conflict it creates is too
large for me to cope.
So you see, I am not a danger to myself or others,
but the irrationality of these governments is a danger
to me. And I now have sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that.
I don't know what will happen, but whatever that
future may be it seems preferable to the past.
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
You have my sympathy, Rick. I do not agree with your ****ysis and
conclusions, but that is my/your privelege.
But may I ask: would you not agree that it is the duty of smokers to refrain
from inflicting their habit on people that don't want to share the
experience and take the chance? That's to say - I don't want to have to
breathe the air that's polluted with their first- or second-hand smoke, I
don't want to have to clean up the butts and ash, and I don't want the stink
on my clothes - whether or not it's harmful.
I agree, also, that this isn't the place for this discussion.
PL
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:VvOdnb7QUYpR2WjVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet...
> What is the bottom line? The model for chemical
> causation is flawed. Another model that incorporates
> radiation may explain more. This new model could not
> include the claim that smoking causes lung cancer. Until
> proper surveys are conducted to verify the temporal
> relation between radiation and cancer when chemicals
> are present, the benefits of that knowledge will not be
> realized.
>
> Don't be concerned about my choice for the subject line,
> things can happen quickly. I have been disabled for
> almost ten years now and have been unable to get
> assistance with terms I find acceptable. Regardless of
> what may happen, it looks like I will be off the internet
> October 27th.
>
>
-
Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:49:23 -0500, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>But may I ask: would you not agree that it is the duty of smokers to refrain
>from inflicting their habit on people that don't want to share the
>experience and take the chance? That's to say - I don't want to have to
>breathe the air that's polluted with their first- or second-hand smoke, I
>don't want to have to clean up the butts and ash, and I don't want the stink
>on my clothes - whether or not it's harmful.
I don't want to pass laws to force them to do so. Nor to force loud
people to be quiet, or drivers to stay far enough from me to keep me
safe. A society where everybody's safe by legislation - until they
die of a long old age, is not my ideal.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks