Thread: IS your house killing you? Did anyone see it

Meh. Think of it as a lesson in critical thinking for anyone else who reads the thread.

I don't worry about the woo-woos, I know I'll need to be a fairy/white witch/dolphin/unicorn/message from other side to shift their viewpoints, but it means I can be a troll with a socially useful purpose!

(Interesting that the original program didn't pick up on the asbestos content of old carpet underlay that hit the news today...now that is investigative reporting)

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Meh. Think of it as a lesson in critical thinking for anyone else who reads the thread.

I don't worry about the woo-woos, I know I'll need to be a fairy/white witch/dolphin/unicorn/message from other side to shift their viewpoints, but it means I can be a troll with a socially useful purpose!

(Interesting that the original program didn't pick up on the asbestos content of old carpet underlay that hit the news today...now that is investigative reporting)

Yes that is a worry I'm sure most people on this forum have had a go at breathing in dust from underfelt.

"The documentary was done with the usual amount of accuracy found in a TV lifestyle entertainment program - which is to say that there were enough scary words to worry the crystal/aura/chakra/feng shui brigade - basically, there was nothing particularly rigorous in its content."

Well I thought it was a great eye opener with much factual information backed by scientific evidence. What is the most common media device today on the planet? Well it's the TV. Now just because a TV publication is created possibly in a way to be marketable to that form of medium does not necessarily mean it is not accurate. Your comment doesn’t go as far as to say that's the case but seems to imply that. Can you say it was not an eye opener that could lead people to make informed choices to change their patterns with the outcome of creating a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their dependants? If that’s the case that it could and I definitely believe so then I can not say anything negative about it, only applaud those who stepped out of their comfort zones to allow such a different program than is normal on the ATV channels to be shown. Maybe a small step but one in a better direction, as opposed to totally baseless rubbish that will ultimately make the sick sicker. I think there was enough truth and common sense to awaken any human being with mind open enough to see it.

It's not just very generalistic but also very in-accurate to single out any group of people disposed to any form of beliefs that you would consider differ to or oppose your own and then make assumptions as to how they took the information. Such comments serve to show the intolerance towards other people’s beliefs, lifestyles and practices. I don't think it matters what your type of beliefs are, if you use common sense then certainly a lot of that information in the film in question is very concerning. There are so many exposures to chemicals in our day to day lives now that any minimization can certainly not hurt.

If you are writing off this information on the basis of what you don't agree with can be conveniently labeled bad science then that would seem very flawed and foolish indeed. Did you look at all the information that led the scientists to come to such conclusions and make an informed opinion? Did not any of it occur as common sense either, even if you didn't like the way it was presented?

This is generally a corollary of improved detection rates and a longer lifespan - people aren't dying as young as they used to, therefore other causes of death are becoming more prominent.

Unfortunately we live in a world where any form of Natural or Alternative Cancer Treatment is illegal. Chemo, radiation, and surgery since the 1940's have been the only mainstream treatments offered to cancer patients. Their long term success rates are low and this is why criteria of what constitutes a successful recovery have been manipulated to hide the trends that these treatments sadly aren’t effective and destruct the body's mechanisms to fight disease which were already suppressed from bad lifestyle choices to get the disease in the first place. Yes early detection may have helped stopped cancers of various kinds from progressing to more advanced stages. Ultimately though so many things such as nutrition one of the main contributing factors in any ailment, deficiency or disease are overlooked and are not even taught in medical school. I recommend seeing food matters. If you can’t get a copy pm me and I'll loan you mine. Below is a link to a Youtube video of the intro.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXfarIbdaVA

That's funny - after a high in the 70 - 90's as detection methods improved, I could have sworn that the rate has been falling:

There has been what would seem like a drop in death statistics due to the criteria being conveniently changed of what constitutes remission from disease and death from disease. This directly relates to the time frame for ones survival after treatment to constitute a recovery. They will never find a cure for cancer it’s too big an industry. The only cure already exists: It’s called a healthy lifestyle which constitutes all kinds of healthy behavior. Healthy thoughts, healthy diet, exercise, and spirituality; whatever that may be to you. You can have the genetic precursors to cancer but not be at risk when you use this approach. The human body was designed to heal itself but can only do so much when all other efforts of the person are going against this. Cancer doesn’t just fall out of the sky. People create it.

You should probably tell the US National Institute of Health that they are wrong - they'd appreciate your expertise in the matter!

A truly empowered and informed person looks at all the data, statistics, and information available. Not just from one group, source or authority and then makes up his/her own mind after testing, questioning and weighing up everything. Don’t think that because someone, a group, or even a so called authority says anything that it must constitute the ultimate truth. The only way you will find have ultimate truth is to find it yourself.

I think that the billion (no exaggeration) or so people saved from starvation by the efforts of one single agronomist would say YES.

Now this individual Norman Borlaug is certainly responsible for some achievements that directly correlate to many lives being saved but are we on the same subject here. I thought the subject was chemical agriculture and what are the benefits not genetic hybridization to create higher yielding crops. Such information as this does not in any way reinforce that YES the world benefits from chemical use and abuses through our food production or in any other way and I am talking about it sustaining and supporting quality of health and life not creating material goods that we think we need more of, it's has certainly supported that and I agree some of those things have been used for good purposes. Mostly I think the example of Borlaug serves to highlight is the potential that could be even greater in helping feed the starving nations if similar approaches as Borlaug's coupled with chemical free organic farming methods as at least they are sustainable and will provide security for the future of those farms. There is plenty or information to support how chemical agriculture depletes topsoil and eventually kills all the microbial life in the soil leaving a huge dependency on chemical fertilizers to produce any crop at all from it. They use more water also that is becoming a more and more precious resource due to the soil not being able to hold the water and the produce that they grow is seriously lacking in trace minerals because the big three are used only NPK, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorus, which create vigorous growth in crops but leave them susceptible to disease creating the unnecessary need for chemical fungicides and pesticides. Who benefits from all this I ask you besides big chemical companies? Clearly chemical agriculture only serves to make our bodies toxic and suppress one of humanity's most important systems; the immune response. Also chemicals affect our Nervous system and every process in the body.

I would have to look into the information more though as I am not a fan of Genetic Engineering and where such approaches may save lives in the short term of some very large numbers of people (couldn't find evidence of 1 billion though) The question still remains as this technology has not proved itself in the long term that possibilities are that it can lead to extinction of many varieties of species destroying many thousands of years of genetic diversity, lead to extinction of species all together that could possibly contribute to massive famine causing death in the many millions not to mention the duration of life possibly diminishing from being sustained from produce that has detrimental effects due to such so called life saving technology. Quick fixes that are not in line with the natural balance and harmony of the Earth and creation should be looked upon with extreme skepticism. I want genetic diversity to be there for my children so this must be done with great care. We are already down the path having lost many thousands of species forever already. Sad fact.

So threes my viewpoints or my truth. My views are shared that they may allow those who are open to another’s point of view to benefit from that. No one is right or wrong but what one sees as their truth is right for them and I totally respect that. Our views are all subjective to our life’s experiences and the beauty of that is we are of different experiences therefore sharing helps to broaden our outlook at least if only about others even if we don't agree.

There is a big disease on the planet right now and it is symptomatic of the collective dysfunctional human ego. Sharing our views and having a forum on these issues without argument or ridicule is part of healing that disease and realizing our vulnerabilities as human beings.

SpiritFlutes

Originally Posted by SpiritFlutes

...Such comments serve to show the intolerance towards other people’s beliefs, lifestyles and practices....

People can believe whatever floats their boat, as long as they don't confuse their belief structures as being equivalent to facts.


...If you are writing off this information on the basis of what you don't agree with can be conveniently labeled bad science then that would seem very flawed and foolish indeed.

Did you look at all the information that led the scientists to come to such conclusions and make an informed opinion? Did not any of it occur as common sense either, even if you didn't like the way it was presented?

I'm writing it off as most of the issues raised in the program were blown out of proportion to their actual threat, and a bit of common sense (such as reading the instructions on an unflued gas heater that tells you to only use it with sufficient ventilation) solves most of these.

Others - like radon gas from granite kitchen counters - draws a very long bow and conflates the danger of living over a large granite formation (such as the Rocky Mountains in the US) into danger from a granite kitchen benchtop - basically, if you don't have a benchtop weighing several hundred thousand tonnes, you are not going to get exposed to anything over the normal background radiation levels. (in fact, the radiation levels at 'alternative' health springs such as Bad Gastein are higher than normal background levels...see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542317_2 )


...Unfortunately we live in a world where any form of Natural or Alternative Cancer Treatment is illegal...

Errrrrrr...I'm not sure what country you are living in, but here (Australia) you are quite welcome to go for whatever treatments you want, be it uropathy, homeopathy, chelation therapy and zapping, the Hallelujah diet, or just plain faith healing. Just don't expect medicare to pick up the tab for non-proven therapies, and be aware that they all have essentially the same success rate, which happens to match the success rate of placebo treatments/spontaneous remission.

But before trying any, you might like to read this - http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQua...h/altseek.html


[on manistream cancer therapies] ...Their long term success rates are low...

No, they're not. Citations please...or are the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organisation wrong in their statistics, too?? ( http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ancerfall.html )


There has been what would seem like a drop in death statistics due to the criteria being conveniently changed of what constitutes remission from disease and death from disease.

Citations please. What has changed in the ICD classifications since they were established 50 years ago?


A truly empowered and informed person looks at all the data, statistics, and information available. Not just from one group, source or authority and then makes up his/her own mind after testing, questioning and weighing up everything.

Where are you getting your statistical information from, I would like to review the sources.....


(couldn't find evidence of 1 billion though)

"In this regard, it is important to recall that Dr. Borlaug’s break-though achievements in the 20th Century are credited with saving a billion people from famine, and keeping an estimated one billion hectares of forest and rainforest from being cleared for agricultural production."

http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=1523&witnessId=4333

You might also like this quote of Dr Borlaug's:

"Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

"At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.

"If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition.

"As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society.

"But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive..."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132479.html

Oh, and if the lunar impactor troubles you, what do you think of the Large Hadron Collider?