<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_07_0123237</id>
	<title>A Balanced Look At Cellphone Radiation</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267989720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A month back we discussed an article in GQ <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/02/06/2238247/Studies-Find-Harm-From-Cellular-and-Wi-Fi-Signals">on the alarmist side</a> of the cellphone-radiation question. Now reader pgn674 passes along a PopSci feature article looking at the <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected">current state of cellphone radiation research</a>. It profiles people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive, "who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility" for studies. The limited research on that condition is still showing that sufferers, in blind tests, are unable to detect radiation at levels better than chance. The article also touches on the relationship of non-ionizing radiation to cancer. The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it, and might also indirectly cause other health deficits beyond simply heating nearby tissue &mdash; though one skeptical researcher cautions, "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A month back we discussed an article in GQ on the alarmist side of the cellphone-radiation question .
Now reader pgn674 passes along a PopSci feature article looking at the current state of cellphone radiation research .
It profiles people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive , " who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility " for studies .
The limited research on that condition is still showing that sufferers , in blind tests , are unable to detect radiation at levels better than chance .
The article also touches on the relationship of non-ionizing radiation to cancer .
The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer , they might promote it , and might also indirectly cause other health deficits beyond simply heating nearby tissue    though one skeptical researcher cautions , " The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A month back we discussed an article in GQ on the alarmist side of the cellphone-radiation question.
Now reader pgn674 passes along a PopSci feature article looking at the current state of cellphone radiation research.
It profiles people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive, "who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility" for studies.
The limited research on that condition is still showing that sufferers, in blind tests, are unable to detect radiation at levels better than chance.
The article also touches on the relationship of non-ionizing radiation to cancer.
The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it, and might also indirectly cause other health deficits beyond simply heating nearby tissue — though one skeptical researcher cautions, "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390638</id>
	<title>Could scientist please return to being objective?</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1267982160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people that ran this study started off their article ok, but it turned in a heap of false information.  There is so much wrong with the entire bullshit "science" used to support the argument that cellular phones and non-ionizing radiation causes cancer and "other health problem" that it is starting to become a real problem.  This is turning into another carbon dioxide(CO2) scare and I am getting tired of some people attempt to scare the shit out of the majority of the populous.</p><p>Hell, I believe the fact that the "alarmist" article was in GQ, and not some respectable scientific journal, is a great indicator of the uselessness of the information contained in said article.  It is people like the author, Christopher Ketcham, and frauds, like Michael Kundi, that perpetuate false information, like the existence of "Electro-Hypersensitivity"(EHS).  These people have done nothing more than give hypochondriacs another excuse to seek attention from the medical community and given lazy people a way out of contributing to society.  The article should be titled, "Examples of Why Sweden is Out of Touch with Reality".</p><p>The really sad and dangerous issue in this article is the obvious misdiagnosis of Mr. Segerb&#228;ck.  First off, his getting sick when he heard a phone ring points to Pavlov's Dog Experiment.  Any living being can be conditioned to react a certain way to external(and internal) stimulation and this is an obvious example.  I am willing to bet that if someone stuck a cellular phone in his out, without Mr. Segerb&#228;ck being aware, then left the phone continually connected to a call, Mr. Segerb&#228;ck would show no adverse reactions.</p><p>What is Mr. Segerb&#228;ck has some type of cancer(no, not from a cellular phone, as you cannot get it from such a device) and it is a paraneoplastic syndrome that is causing his adverse reactions?  At best, Mr. Segerb&#228;ck is a hypochondriac and at worst, he has real and serious health problem, which he needs to seek immediate treatment(which, again, would not be caused my electromagnetic/non-ionizing radiation, because it is impossible).</p><p>Until real scientist in truly objective setting run a study on EHS and give honest and objective scientific evidence that it exist, then I will continue to believe such a condition to be utterly false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people that ran this study started off their article ok , but it turned in a heap of false information .
There is so much wrong with the entire bullshit " science " used to support the argument that cellular phones and non-ionizing radiation causes cancer and " other health problem " that it is starting to become a real problem .
This is turning into another carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) scare and I am getting tired of some people attempt to scare the shit out of the majority of the populous.Hell , I believe the fact that the " alarmist " article was in GQ , and not some respectable scientific journal , is a great indicator of the uselessness of the information contained in said article .
It is people like the author , Christopher Ketcham , and frauds , like Michael Kundi , that perpetuate false information , like the existence of " Electro-Hypersensitivity " ( EHS ) .
These people have done nothing more than give hypochondriacs another excuse to seek attention from the medical community and given lazy people a way out of contributing to society .
The article should be titled , " Examples of Why Sweden is Out of Touch with Reality " .The really sad and dangerous issue in this article is the obvious misdiagnosis of Mr. Segerb   ck. First off , his getting sick when he heard a phone ring points to Pavlov 's Dog Experiment .
Any living being can be conditioned to react a certain way to external ( and internal ) stimulation and this is an obvious example .
I am willing to bet that if someone stuck a cellular phone in his out , without Mr. Segerb   ck being aware , then left the phone continually connected to a call , Mr. Segerb   ck would show no adverse reactions.What is Mr. Segerb   ck has some type of cancer ( no , not from a cellular phone , as you can not get it from such a device ) and it is a paraneoplastic syndrome that is causing his adverse reactions ?
At best , Mr. Segerb   ck is a hypochondriac and at worst , he has real and serious health problem , which he needs to seek immediate treatment ( which , again , would not be caused my electromagnetic/non-ionizing radiation , because it is impossible ) .Until real scientist in truly objective setting run a study on EHS and give honest and objective scientific evidence that it exist , then I will continue to believe such a condition to be utterly false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people that ran this study started off their article ok, but it turned in a heap of false information.
There is so much wrong with the entire bullshit "science" used to support the argument that cellular phones and non-ionizing radiation causes cancer and "other health problem" that it is starting to become a real problem.
This is turning into another carbon dioxide(CO2) scare and I am getting tired of some people attempt to scare the shit out of the majority of the populous.Hell, I believe the fact that the "alarmist" article was in GQ, and not some respectable scientific journal, is a great indicator of the uselessness of the information contained in said article.
It is people like the author, Christopher Ketcham, and frauds, like Michael Kundi, that perpetuate false information, like the existence of "Electro-Hypersensitivity"(EHS).
These people have done nothing more than give hypochondriacs another excuse to seek attention from the medical community and given lazy people a way out of contributing to society.
The article should be titled, "Examples of Why Sweden is Out of Touch with Reality".The really sad and dangerous issue in this article is the obvious misdiagnosis of Mr. Segerbäck.  First off, his getting sick when he heard a phone ring points to Pavlov's Dog Experiment.
Any living being can be conditioned to react a certain way to external(and internal) stimulation and this is an obvious example.
I am willing to bet that if someone stuck a cellular phone in his out, without Mr. Segerbäck being aware, then left the phone continually connected to a call, Mr. Segerbäck would show no adverse reactions.What is Mr. Segerbäck has some type of cancer(no, not from a cellular phone, as you cannot get it from such a device) and it is a paraneoplastic syndrome that is causing his adverse reactions?
At best, Mr. Segerbäck is a hypochondriac and at worst, he has real and serious health problem, which he needs to seek immediate treatment(which, again, would not be caused my electromagnetic/non-ionizing radiation, because it is impossible).Until real scientist in truly objective setting run a study on EHS and give honest and objective scientific evidence that it exist, then I will continue to believe such a condition to be utterly false.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393230</id>
	<title>Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The description in the story smells like a severe psychological problem that is being ignored. Some people faint at the sight of spiders or even large groups of people -this person faints when he notices a cell phone. Anxiety disorders can be treated, often very effectively. People debiting whether the spider is somehow magically damaging the victim's brain doesn't help anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The description in the story smells like a severe psychological problem that is being ignored .
Some people faint at the sight of spiders or even large groups of people -this person faints when he notices a cell phone .
Anxiety disorders can be treated , often very effectively .
People debiting whether the spider is somehow magically damaging the victim 's brain does n't help anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The description in the story smells like a severe psychological problem that is being ignored.
Some people faint at the sight of spiders or even large groups of people -this person faints when he notices a cell phone.
Anxiety disorders can be treated, often very effectively.
People debiting whether the spider is somehow magically damaging the victim's brain doesn't help anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387854</id>
	<title>Re:The gap</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1267958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mobile phones emit a couple of hundred milliwatts *at full power* - and usually far less than that.  The transmit power is turned down to the minimum required to reach the cell tower, which is why your battery goes flat extremely quickly when you've got a poor signal.</p><p>Compare a mobile phone battery with a PMR handheld battery, which powers a transmitter that puts out about 5 watts on a very intermittent duty cycle.  The battery for a Motorola Mototrbo (similar computer and DSP bits to a Nokia N73, UHF or VHF radio stack) is about the size of three whole iPhones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mobile phones emit a couple of hundred milliwatts * at full power * - and usually far less than that .
The transmit power is turned down to the minimum required to reach the cell tower , which is why your battery goes flat extremely quickly when you 've got a poor signal.Compare a mobile phone battery with a PMR handheld battery , which powers a transmitter that puts out about 5 watts on a very intermittent duty cycle .
The battery for a Motorola Mototrbo ( similar computer and DSP bits to a Nokia N73 , UHF or VHF radio stack ) is about the size of three whole iPhones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mobile phones emit a couple of hundred milliwatts *at full power* - and usually far less than that.
The transmit power is turned down to the minimum required to reach the cell tower, which is why your battery goes flat extremely quickly when you've got a poor signal.Compare a mobile phone battery with a PMR handheld battery, which powers a transmitter that puts out about 5 watts on a very intermittent duty cycle.
The battery for a Motorola Mototrbo (similar computer and DSP bits to a Nokia N73, UHF or VHF radio stack) is about the size of three whole iPhones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390814</id>
	<title>Re:Typical</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1267983180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But we're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least  of these people's problems, which are <b>often caused by</b> extensive use of mind-altering drugs.</i> </p><p>
&nbsp; There, fixed that for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But we 're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least of these people 's problems , which are often caused by extensive use of mind-altering drugs .
  There , fixed that for you ; ) SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least  of these people's problems, which are often caused by extensive use of mind-altering drugs.
  There, fixed that for you ;)SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390298</id>
	<title>Radiation?! Don't Hold It Next to Your Brain,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I use a headset and keep my phone in my pocket right next to my genitals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I use a headset and keep my phone in my pocket right next to my genitals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I use a headset and keep my phone in my pocket right next to my genitals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31396956</id>
	<title>Re:"unable to detect radiation"?</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1267979400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
150 years ago, people lived to 50 years or so.  <br>
There were no cell towers or cell phones around then. <br>

Now we have those towers all over the place, and everyone is yakkin like crazy on their
little 1-watt coffee-mug heaters. And-<br>
AND -   people live until 80+ <br>
<br>
Hello...!  Like, do you see where this is goin'? Haven't you figured it out yet? <br>
Am I the only sane person here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>150 years ago , people lived to 50 years or so .
There were no cell towers or cell phones around then .
Now we have those towers all over the place , and everyone is yakkin like crazy on their little 1-watt coffee-mug heaters .
And- AND - people live until 80 + Hello... !
Like , do you see where this is goin ' ?
Have n't you figured it out yet ?
Am I the only sane person here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
150 years ago, people lived to 50 years or so.
There were no cell towers or cell phones around then.
Now we have those towers all over the place, and everyone is yakkin like crazy on their
little 1-watt coffee-mug heaters.
And-
AND -   people live until 80+ 

Hello...!
Like, do you see where this is goin'?
Haven't you figured it out yet?
Am I the only sane person here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388126</id>
	<title>do they have any potential?</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1267962840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does a micro-wave have ANY potential to break an atomic bond? If the answer is 'yes' then I think the <i>simple</i> conclusion would be that wireless radiation <i>could</i> cause cancer. Of course the next issue would be probability.<br> <br>On a different angle, microwaves produce heat in the absorbing material, and the warmer matter becomes the more likely atomic bonds are to break, so another <i>simple</i> (I'll stress simple) conclusion could be that microwaves <i>increase the likelihood</i> of cancer.<br> <br>Those two conclusions, however simple, would concern an average person. The next step of <i>quantifying</i> the risk takes a lot of research, with a lot of variables and equations and, and would be venerable to fudging from any vested interest (perhaps all of the contradicting papers over the years are evidence of that). I guess the most reputable answer only time will tell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a micro-wave have ANY potential to break an atomic bond ?
If the answer is 'yes ' then I think the simple conclusion would be that wireless radiation could cause cancer .
Of course the next issue would be probability .
On a different angle , microwaves produce heat in the absorbing material , and the warmer matter becomes the more likely atomic bonds are to break , so another simple ( I 'll stress simple ) conclusion could be that microwaves increase the likelihood of cancer .
Those two conclusions , however simple , would concern an average person .
The next step of quantifying the risk takes a lot of research , with a lot of variables and equations and , and would be venerable to fudging from any vested interest ( perhaps all of the contradicting papers over the years are evidence of that ) .
I guess the most reputable answer only time will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a micro-wave have ANY potential to break an atomic bond?
If the answer is 'yes' then I think the simple conclusion would be that wireless radiation could cause cancer.
Of course the next issue would be probability.
On a different angle, microwaves produce heat in the absorbing material, and the warmer matter becomes the more likely atomic bonds are to break, so another simple (I'll stress simple) conclusion could be that microwaves increase the likelihood of cancer.
Those two conclusions, however simple, would concern an average person.
The next step of quantifying the risk takes a lot of research, with a lot of variables and equations and, and would be venerable to fudging from any vested interest (perhaps all of the contradicting papers over the years are evidence of that).
I guess the most reputable answer only time will tell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388080</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1267962180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As Lessig said in his latest website chat, 75\% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.</i></p><p>As a matter of interest, who *were* they funded by?  People with an interest in proving a link between RF from mobile phones and cancer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Lessig said in his latest website chat , 75 \ % of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.As a matter of interest , who * were * they funded by ?
People with an interest in proving a link between RF from mobile phones and cancer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Lessig said in his latest website chat, 75\% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.As a matter of interest, who *were* they funded by?
People with an interest in proving a link between RF from mobile phones and cancer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31396900</id>
	<title>Re:For all those hyper-electrosensitives out there</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1267978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copper!   let's not forget copper bracelets! <br>
And I've been told that the really mod people eschew copper in favour of fibre-optic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copper !
let 's not forget copper bracelets !
And I 've been told that the really mod people eschew copper in favour of fibre-optic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copper!
let's not forget copper bracelets!
And I've been told that the really mod people eschew copper in favour of fibre-optic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31401344</id>
	<title>Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1268067720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real <b>psychological condition</b>.</p></div><p>/fixed</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real psychological condition./fixed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real psychological condition./fixed
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388272</id>
	<title>A big gap?</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1267965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one."</p> </div><p> IMO the gap <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn" title="slashdot.org">not as big</a> [slashdot.org] as some scientists try to paint. And heck, that was about food, stuff which is digested by our stomach on a chemical level.

</p><p> The radiation which directly influences the organs? Hell yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one .
" IMO the gap not as big [ slashdot.org ] as some scientists try to paint .
And heck , that was about food , stuff which is digested by our stomach on a chemical level .
The radiation which directly influences the organs ?
Hell yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one.
"  IMO the gap not as big [slashdot.org] as some scientists try to paint.
And heck, that was about food, stuff which is digested by our stomach on a chemical level.
The radiation which directly influences the organs?
Hell yes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390360</id>
	<title>Cell phone radiation, long term effects</title>
	<author>galadriel</author>
	<datestamp>1267980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a review of the scientific research on brain cancer and cellphones:<br><a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3073" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3073</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org]</p><p>"So where do we stand now? My interpretation of the evidence thus far is that we can say with some confidence that there is no short term risk of brain cancer from cell phone use. However, after more than ten years the evidence is less clear but trends towards either no detectable risk or a very small risk that barely rises above the noise."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a review of the scientific research on brain cancer and cellphones : http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ ? p = 3073 [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ] " So where do we stand now ?
My interpretation of the evidence thus far is that we can say with some confidence that there is no short term risk of brain cancer from cell phone use .
However , after more than ten years the evidence is less clear but trends towards either no detectable risk or a very small risk that barely rises above the noise .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a review of the scientific research on brain cancer and cellphones:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3073 [sciencebasedmedicine.org]"So where do we stand now?
My interpretation of the evidence thus far is that we can say with some confidence that there is no short term risk of brain cancer from cell phone use.
However, after more than ten years the evidence is less clear but trends towards either no detectable risk or a very small risk that barely rises above the noise.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31389260</id>
	<title>Re:For all those hyper-electrosensitives out there</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1267974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that's how you're supposed to use them, but whatever floats your boat...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's how you 're supposed to use them , but whatever floats your boat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's how you're supposed to use them, but whatever floats your boat...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31392616</id>
	<title>Perhaps a controlled experiment is necessary</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1267992900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say you hide active RF transmitters on your body and visit the guy. If he doesn't react then it is pure bullshit. Use controls with powered down RF transmitters, no RF transmitter etc.
<br> <br>
And his symptoms while on a boat can also be due to sea sickness. Or maybe it was the motor on the boat, you know,  nice big spark gap generators called spark plugs if it's gasoline, or the generator supplying power to the boat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you hide active RF transmitters on your body and visit the guy .
If he does n't react then it is pure bullshit .
Use controls with powered down RF transmitters , no RF transmitter etc .
And his symptoms while on a boat can also be due to sea sickness .
Or maybe it was the motor on the boat , you know , nice big spark gap generators called spark plugs if it 's gasoline , or the generator supplying power to the boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you hide active RF transmitters on your body and visit the guy.
If he doesn't react then it is pure bullshit.
Use controls with powered down RF transmitters, no RF transmitter etc.
And his symptoms while on a boat can also be due to sea sickness.
Or maybe it was the motor on the boat, you know,  nice big spark gap generators called spark plugs if it's gasoline, or the generator supplying power to the boat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387620</id>
	<title>Re:Typical</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267954320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Which just goes to show how much the tinfoil hat actively interferes with the thought process...."<br> <br>Exactly! Tin-foil hats are a plot from the government, they really just amplifying the cellphone radiation! Don't listen to Ondore's lies!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which just goes to show how much the tinfoil hat actively interferes with the thought process.... " Exactly !
Tin-foil hats are a plot from the government , they really just amplifying the cellphone radiation !
Do n't listen to Ondore 's lies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which just goes to show how much the tinfoil hat actively interferes with the thought process...." Exactly!
Tin-foil hats are a plot from the government, they really just amplifying the cellphone radiation!
Don't listen to Ondore's lies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387816</id>
	<title>Buh?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1267957680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely that high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it,</p> </div><p>Like, how? They take out public service ads? "Hey, kids, cancer is your friend!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely that high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer , they might promote it , Like , how ?
They take out public service ads ?
" Hey , kids , cancer is your friend !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely that high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it, Like, how?
They take out public service ads?
"Hey, kids, cancer is your friend!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391452</id>
	<title>"Balanced"</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1267986660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo" title="youtube.com">Get in the sack!</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get in the sack !
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get in the sack!
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387386</id>
	<title>I'm calling  CQ bullshit CQ bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utter bullshit, these people receiver more radiation energy from every shortwave broadcast station on the planet than they will from 100 cellphone towers.  It is all in their pathetic fucking heads.  Hell, given good band conditions, my 1.5kw amateur station radiates them more than a city full of cell phones.</p><p>Go ahead, fear the cell phone if you want.  The body absorption rate is higher at 146mhz, and I can legally run 1500 watts there, and make a habit of running 5-50 watts.</p><p>While they are bitching... why not study how much more radiation they are getting from the local weather radar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter bullshit , these people receiver more radiation energy from every shortwave broadcast station on the planet than they will from 100 cellphone towers .
It is all in their pathetic fucking heads .
Hell , given good band conditions , my 1.5kw amateur station radiates them more than a city full of cell phones.Go ahead , fear the cell phone if you want .
The body absorption rate is higher at 146mhz , and I can legally run 1500 watts there , and make a habit of running 5-50 watts.While they are bitching... why not study how much more radiation they are getting from the local weather radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter bullshit, these people receiver more radiation energy from every shortwave broadcast station on the planet than they will from 100 cellphone towers.
It is all in their pathetic fucking heads.
Hell, given good band conditions, my 1.5kw amateur station radiates them more than a city full of cell phones.Go ahead, fear the cell phone if you want.
The body absorption rate is higher at 146mhz, and I can legally run 1500 watts there, and make a habit of running 5-50 watts.While they are bitching... why not study how much more radiation they are getting from the local weather radar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31389970</id>
	<title>The SUN fuckers, do you know it?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what radiation is a hundreds of thousands of times stronger than cellphone microwaves, and incredibly brighter?</p><p>THE SUN!</p><p>If you are in fear of getting sick from microwaves, you MUST have hundreds of thousands of times more fear of sunlight. It&rsquo;s simple physics.</p><p>So? Your choice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what radiation is a hundreds of thousands of times stronger than cellphone microwaves , and incredibly brighter ? THE SUN ! If you are in fear of getting sick from microwaves , you MUST have hundreds of thousands of times more fear of sunlight .
It    s simple physics.So ?
Your choice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what radiation is a hundreds of thousands of times stronger than cellphone microwaves, and incredibly brighter?THE SUN!If you are in fear of getting sick from microwaves, you MUST have hundreds of thousands of times more fear of sunlight.
It’s simple physics.So?
Your choice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740</id>
	<title>"unable to detect radiation"?</title>
	<author>BitterKraut</author>
	<datestamp>1267956300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So x-rays must be completely harmless if I can't "detect" them?
Think of airplane noise, as it is permanent near large airports. Would be ridiculous to claim it seeds tumors in human bodies. It just disturbs attentiveness, concentration, calmness, sleep. If you are a sensitive person, these disturbances may severely affect your quality of life. Noises can be heard, i.e., "detected", so there's no dispute as to the possible harm they can do. But how adequate are these criteria? Consciousness is not a system monitor. It is a bonus that some species were endowed with. The human body is not a robot. Our physiological systems were not designed. They're not just modules with interfaces. Their behaviour is not just determined by a set of formal rules and a specified input. They're not circuit boards. When our bodies and their functions gradually evolved in nature's history, they were not exposed to electromagnetic fields of the quality that is in question now.
As long as life is not understood (and it isn't, unless we'll have succeeded in building living cells from scratch), it is not unreasonable to be cautious.
The cancer claim is notorious because any lesser claim is not shocking enough to make it to the news. It is a suicide bomb of reputation: You get some attention at the expense of credibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So x-rays must be completely harmless if I ca n't " detect " them ?
Think of airplane noise , as it is permanent near large airports .
Would be ridiculous to claim it seeds tumors in human bodies .
It just disturbs attentiveness , concentration , calmness , sleep .
If you are a sensitive person , these disturbances may severely affect your quality of life .
Noises can be heard , i.e. , " detected " , so there 's no dispute as to the possible harm they can do .
But how adequate are these criteria ?
Consciousness is not a system monitor .
It is a bonus that some species were endowed with .
The human body is not a robot .
Our physiological systems were not designed .
They 're not just modules with interfaces .
Their behaviour is not just determined by a set of formal rules and a specified input .
They 're not circuit boards .
When our bodies and their functions gradually evolved in nature 's history , they were not exposed to electromagnetic fields of the quality that is in question now .
As long as life is not understood ( and it is n't , unless we 'll have succeeded in building living cells from scratch ) , it is not unreasonable to be cautious .
The cancer claim is notorious because any lesser claim is not shocking enough to make it to the news .
It is a suicide bomb of reputation : You get some attention at the expense of credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So x-rays must be completely harmless if I can't "detect" them?
Think of airplane noise, as it is permanent near large airports.
Would be ridiculous to claim it seeds tumors in human bodies.
It just disturbs attentiveness, concentration, calmness, sleep.
If you are a sensitive person, these disturbances may severely affect your quality of life.
Noises can be heard, i.e., "detected", so there's no dispute as to the possible harm they can do.
But how adequate are these criteria?
Consciousness is not a system monitor.
It is a bonus that some species were endowed with.
The human body is not a robot.
Our physiological systems were not designed.
They're not just modules with interfaces.
Their behaviour is not just determined by a set of formal rules and a specified input.
They're not circuit boards.
When our bodies and their functions gradually evolved in nature's history, they were not exposed to electromagnetic fields of the quality that is in question now.
As long as life is not understood (and it isn't, unless we'll have succeeded in building living cells from scratch), it is not unreasonable to be cautious.
The cancer claim is notorious because any lesser claim is not shocking enough to make it to the news.
It is a suicide bomb of reputation: You get some attention at the expense of credibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31389298</id>
	<title>tinfoil hat reccommended</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sry, but bullshit is bullshit. id like to sit these ppl down, give em an antenna and let em guess if its transmitting or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sry , but bullshit is bullshit .
id like to sit these ppl down , give em an antenna and let em guess if its transmitting or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sry, but bullshit is bullshit.
id like to sit these ppl down, give em an antenna and let em guess if its transmitting or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393284</id>
	<title>Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1267954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely. This is an anxiety disorder pure and simple. Their reaction to a ringing cell phone is exactly the same as a person with spider phobia's reaction to spiders. We don't try exterminating all spiders, we treat the individual with the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely .
This is an anxiety disorder pure and simple .
Their reaction to a ringing cell phone is exactly the same as a person with spider phobia 's reaction to spiders .
We do n't try exterminating all spiders , we treat the individual with the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely.
This is an anxiety disorder pure and simple.
Their reaction to a ringing cell phone is exactly the same as a person with spider phobia's reaction to spiders.
We don't try exterminating all spiders, we treat the individual with the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387552</id>
	<title>Re:I'm calling CQ bullshit CQ bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267953120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anonymous Coward DE another Anonymous Coward You are S9+80 here and annoying all your neighbors with TVI. Pls QRP. QSL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Coward DE another Anonymous Coward You are S9 + 80 here and annoying all your neighbors with TVI .
Pls QRP .
QSL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Coward DE another Anonymous Coward You are S9+80 here and annoying all your neighbors with TVI.
Pls QRP.
QSL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388454</id>
	<title>Re:"unable to detect radiation"?</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1267967520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people unable to detect the cellphone radiation are people who claim to get headaches and whatnot from said radiation. If there is no correlation between reported headaches and actual presence of radiation, then obviously that is a relevant find suggesting that the headaches are in fact not related to cellphones or electronics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people unable to detect the cellphone radiation are people who claim to get headaches and whatnot from said radiation .
If there is no correlation between reported headaches and actual presence of radiation , then obviously that is a relevant find suggesting that the headaches are in fact not related to cellphones or electronics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people unable to detect the cellphone radiation are people who claim to get headaches and whatnot from said radiation.
If there is no correlation between reported headaches and actual presence of radiation, then obviously that is a relevant find suggesting that the headaches are in fact not related to cellphones or electronics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388356</id>
	<title>Re:Reasons I'm Not Reading This</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1267966320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was way easier to skip it, just do it at the word "balanced". Reporters think balance is to give the same attention to both sides of the discussion. But scientific issues work differently, science requires you to be biased towards the theory that is actually supported by evidence. Using journalism's balance in science is the Arkansas school board approach...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was way easier to skip it , just do it at the word " balanced " .
Reporters think balance is to give the same attention to both sides of the discussion .
But scientific issues work differently , science requires you to be biased towards the theory that is actually supported by evidence .
Using journalism 's balance in science is the Arkansas school board approach.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was way easier to skip it, just do it at the word "balanced".
Reporters think balance is to give the same attention to both sides of the discussion.
But scientific issues work differently, science requires you to be biased towards the theory that is actually supported by evidence.
Using journalism's balance in science is the Arkansas school board approach...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387490</id>
	<title>Re:Reasons I'm Not Reading This</title>
	<author>assert(0)</author>
	<datestamp>1267995480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5. "balanced"</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=319" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=319</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
" balanced " http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ ? p = 319 [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
"balanced"http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=319 [sciencebasedmedicine.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387922</id>
	<title>Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>genkernel</author>
	<datestamp>1267959480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that there is reason to be skeptical of people who call themselves radiation sensitive. And given how the word "cancer" has been thrown around as a means of fear-mongering, I take all of those accusations with a grain of salt as well. However, I think there is evidence to suggest an indirect effect. Some studies suggest that radiation, even non-ionizing radiation, can interfere with the blood brain barrier, allowing potentially harmful chemicals to pass through in greater quantities (or simply pass through at all). This would not cause cancer, but a variety of other conditions (which might cause cancer), and only indirectly.
<br> <br>
Some articles to take such positions include <a href="http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=995" title="emfacts.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [emfacts.com] one, which notes that lower SAR values have the potential to be more damaging than higher ones. and <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=+author:\%22Lin\%22+intitle:\%22The+blood-brain+barrier,+cancer,+cell+phones,+and+microwave+radiation\%22&amp;oi=scholarr" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [google.com] scholarly article, which also suggests using such radiation to treat cancer. It should be noted that this is a somewhat newer area of research. According to the later article: "Clearly, the highly complex physical and biological phenomena involved requires the development of new experimental, measuring and observation procedures; these were not always completely controlled in the early research projects".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that there is reason to be skeptical of people who call themselves radiation sensitive .
And given how the word " cancer " has been thrown around as a means of fear-mongering , I take all of those accusations with a grain of salt as well .
However , I think there is evidence to suggest an indirect effect .
Some studies suggest that radiation , even non-ionizing radiation , can interfere with the blood brain barrier , allowing potentially harmful chemicals to pass through in greater quantities ( or simply pass through at all ) .
This would not cause cancer , but a variety of other conditions ( which might cause cancer ) , and only indirectly .
Some articles to take such positions include this [ emfacts.com ] one , which notes that lower SAR values have the potential to be more damaging than higher ones .
and this [ google.com ] scholarly article , which also suggests using such radiation to treat cancer .
It should be noted that this is a somewhat newer area of research .
According to the later article : " Clearly , the highly complex physical and biological phenomena involved requires the development of new experimental , measuring and observation procedures ; these were not always completely controlled in the early research projects " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that there is reason to be skeptical of people who call themselves radiation sensitive.
And given how the word "cancer" has been thrown around as a means of fear-mongering, I take all of those accusations with a grain of salt as well.
However, I think there is evidence to suggest an indirect effect.
Some studies suggest that radiation, even non-ionizing radiation, can interfere with the blood brain barrier, allowing potentially harmful chemicals to pass through in greater quantities (or simply pass through at all).
This would not cause cancer, but a variety of other conditions (which might cause cancer), and only indirectly.
Some articles to take such positions include this [emfacts.com] one, which notes that lower SAR values have the potential to be more damaging than higher ones.
and this [google.com] scholarly article, which also suggests using such radiation to treat cancer.
It should be noted that this is a somewhat newer area of research.
According to the later article: "Clearly, the highly complex physical and biological phenomena involved requires the development of new experimental, measuring and observation procedures; these were not always completely controlled in the early research projects".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387796</id>
	<title>Too easy just saying luddites  (was: Re:Luddites)</title>
	<author>beh</author>
	<datestamp>1267957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, yes, there are those people claiming hypersensitivity, basing it simply on their fear of the radiation getting to their bodies.</p><p>But, I wouldn't go as far as saying that there is no danger at all because of them, much the same way I wouldn't conclude the radiation being dangerous if non of these people claimed hypersensitivity.</p><p>The question to me comes down to long-term exposure damage, which we cannot much about yet - and it would be difficult to force companies into very long term safety tests before being allowed to market their devices. But I do feel that the subject should stay under investigation for longer.</p><p>In the time after WW-II, US armed forces tested how their troops could fight near the blast of a nuclear weapon - and, hey, pretty much everyone was healthy in the first tests afterwards. Cancers don't measurably spring up within hours of a test. Still, you have claims from soldiers claiming their cancers were caused by those events decades later...</p><p>In Germany, soldiers working on mobile radars are trying to get compensations for tumors they seem to have received by operating the radar devices. Yet, I bet you, on the first tests of those, there were no permanent health problems reported in the days/weeks after the initial tests.</p><p>Most famously, big tobacco - your first cigarette isn't clearly measurable the one killing you. Neither is the second, third, twenty-first or onehundredfifthyfourths the lethal one. There is no doubt left about cigarettes being lethal now, but big tobacco made lots of profits over the years by claiming that cigarettes are safe, and that noone could ever link any individual cigarette to lung cancer. And it's still the argument used now by smokers against 'too heavy handed' anti-smoking legislation - why should smoking be banned in pubs. Let non-smokers go somewhere else. Or - more ridiculously, smokers in some countries (like the UK) actually claiming it's breaching their human rights if you prohibited them from lighting up in public.   (Who cares about the human rights of the non-smoker next to him, if noone can prove it was 'my' cigarette that gave him lung cancer)?</p><p>Neither of those examples can obviously prove whether there is cellphone tower radiation is harmful; much the way that the luddites trying to raise panic about them can prove their harmful, nor that their existence proves cell phone radiation harmless.</p><p>What I would wish for - is that the subject stays under some form of independent investigation - without any lobbying from either side.  (don't see though, how that could ever happen)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , yes , there are those people claiming hypersensitivity , basing it simply on their fear of the radiation getting to their bodies.But , I would n't go as far as saying that there is no danger at all because of them , much the same way I would n't conclude the radiation being dangerous if non of these people claimed hypersensitivity.The question to me comes down to long-term exposure damage , which we can not much about yet - and it would be difficult to force companies into very long term safety tests before being allowed to market their devices .
But I do feel that the subject should stay under investigation for longer.In the time after WW-II , US armed forces tested how their troops could fight near the blast of a nuclear weapon - and , hey , pretty much everyone was healthy in the first tests afterwards .
Cancers do n't measurably spring up within hours of a test .
Still , you have claims from soldiers claiming their cancers were caused by those events decades later...In Germany , soldiers working on mobile radars are trying to get compensations for tumors they seem to have received by operating the radar devices .
Yet , I bet you , on the first tests of those , there were no permanent health problems reported in the days/weeks after the initial tests.Most famously , big tobacco - your first cigarette is n't clearly measurable the one killing you .
Neither is the second , third , twenty-first or onehundredfifthyfourths the lethal one .
There is no doubt left about cigarettes being lethal now , but big tobacco made lots of profits over the years by claiming that cigarettes are safe , and that noone could ever link any individual cigarette to lung cancer .
And it 's still the argument used now by smokers against 'too heavy handed ' anti-smoking legislation - why should smoking be banned in pubs .
Let non-smokers go somewhere else .
Or - more ridiculously , smokers in some countries ( like the UK ) actually claiming it 's breaching their human rights if you prohibited them from lighting up in public .
( Who cares about the human rights of the non-smoker next to him , if noone can prove it was 'my ' cigarette that gave him lung cancer ) ? Neither of those examples can obviously prove whether there is cellphone tower radiation is harmful ; much the way that the luddites trying to raise panic about them can prove their harmful , nor that their existence proves cell phone radiation harmless.What I would wish for - is that the subject stays under some form of independent investigation - without any lobbying from either side .
( do n't see though , how that could ever happen )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, yes, there are those people claiming hypersensitivity, basing it simply on their fear of the radiation getting to their bodies.But, I wouldn't go as far as saying that there is no danger at all because of them, much the same way I wouldn't conclude the radiation being dangerous if non of these people claimed hypersensitivity.The question to me comes down to long-term exposure damage, which we cannot much about yet - and it would be difficult to force companies into very long term safety tests before being allowed to market their devices.
But I do feel that the subject should stay under investigation for longer.In the time after WW-II, US armed forces tested how their troops could fight near the blast of a nuclear weapon - and, hey, pretty much everyone was healthy in the first tests afterwards.
Cancers don't measurably spring up within hours of a test.
Still, you have claims from soldiers claiming their cancers were caused by those events decades later...In Germany, soldiers working on mobile radars are trying to get compensations for tumors they seem to have received by operating the radar devices.
Yet, I bet you, on the first tests of those, there were no permanent health problems reported in the days/weeks after the initial tests.Most famously, big tobacco - your first cigarette isn't clearly measurable the one killing you.
Neither is the second, third, twenty-first or onehundredfifthyfourths the lethal one.
There is no doubt left about cigarettes being lethal now, but big tobacco made lots of profits over the years by claiming that cigarettes are safe, and that noone could ever link any individual cigarette to lung cancer.
And it's still the argument used now by smokers against 'too heavy handed' anti-smoking legislation - why should smoking be banned in pubs.
Let non-smokers go somewhere else.
Or - more ridiculously, smokers in some countries (like the UK) actually claiming it's breaching their human rights if you prohibited them from lighting up in public.
(Who cares about the human rights of the non-smoker next to him, if noone can prove it was 'my' cigarette that gave him lung cancer)?Neither of those examples can obviously prove whether there is cellphone tower radiation is harmful; much the way that the luddites trying to raise panic about them can prove their harmful, nor that their existence proves cell phone radiation harmless.What I would wish for - is that the subject stays under some form of independent investigation - without any lobbying from either side.
(don't see though, how that could ever happen)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31404164</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy just saying luddites (was: Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>zigfreed</author>
	<datestamp>1268080980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> No danger because of them</p> </div><p> The tower could be poorly constructed and fall on your house, or someone may be nearby when the fence near it gets hit by lightning, or a war could make it a target, creating a dangerous situation because of the tower. Since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersensitivity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> hypersensitivity </a> [wikipedia.org] is an immune system response, the effect should be measurable.
<br> <br>
The effect you would be expecting from EMF towers is similar to tobacco (effect from continuous exposure at a particular frequency for a length of time) as opposed to asbestos (effect from improper treatment and handling). These towers are magic and man-made, so they must be evil. Now excuse me while I absorb up large amounts of healthy multi-frequency radiation from the sun. Oh, the sweet cleansing power of UV!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No danger because of them The tower could be poorly constructed and fall on your house , or someone may be nearby when the fence near it gets hit by lightning , or a war could make it a target , creating a dangerous situation because of the tower .
Since hypersensitivity [ wikipedia.org ] is an immune system response , the effect should be measurable .
The effect you would be expecting from EMF towers is similar to tobacco ( effect from continuous exposure at a particular frequency for a length of time ) as opposed to asbestos ( effect from improper treatment and handling ) .
These towers are magic and man-made , so they must be evil .
Now excuse me while I absorb up large amounts of healthy multi-frequency radiation from the sun .
Oh , the sweet cleansing power of UV !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No danger because of them  The tower could be poorly constructed and fall on your house, or someone may be nearby when the fence near it gets hit by lightning, or a war could make it a target, creating a dangerous situation because of the tower.
Since  hypersensitivity  [wikipedia.org] is an immune system response, the effect should be measurable.
The effect you would be expecting from EMF towers is similar to tobacco (effect from continuous exposure at a particular frequency for a length of time) as opposed to asbestos (effect from improper treatment and handling).
These towers are magic and man-made, so they must be evil.
Now excuse me while I absorb up large amounts of healthy multi-frequency radiation from the sun.
Oh, the sweet cleansing power of UV!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387772</id>
	<title>Re:I'm calling CQ bullshit CQ bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267956960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would rather run 1500W on 2.4Ghz, blocking all wifi and cooking dinner at the same time.<br>
Or 1500W on 160M with a half wave vertical dipole and get a qso card from every country</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather run 1500W on 2.4Ghz , blocking all wifi and cooking dinner at the same time .
Or 1500W on 160M with a half wave vertical dipole and get a qso card from every country</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather run 1500W on 2.4Ghz, blocking all wifi and cooking dinner at the same time.
Or 1500W on 160M with a half wave vertical dipole and get a qso card from every country</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390006</id>
	<title>Re:For all those hyper-electrosensitives out there</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267978440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the way: I&rsquo;m selling infallible anti-cellphone-radiation healing crystals for only $5000 a piece!<br>Remember: Infallible! Or money back!</p><p>(The best strategy to deal with idiots, is to make money (or power) off of them. It&rsquo;s called natural selection. Bill Gates understands this. Steve Jobs does. Every politician understands it. Etc, etc, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way : I    m selling infallible anti-cellphone-radiation healing crystals for only $ 5000 a piece ! Remember : Infallible !
Or money back !
( The best strategy to deal with idiots , is to make money ( or power ) off of them .
It    s called natural selection .
Bill Gates understands this .
Steve Jobs does .
Every politician understands it .
Etc , etc , etc .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way: I’m selling infallible anti-cellphone-radiation healing crystals for only $5000 a piece!Remember: Infallible!
Or money back!
(The best strategy to deal with idiots, is to make money (or power) off of them.
It’s called natural selection.
Bill Gates understands this.
Steve Jobs does.
Every politician understands it.
Etc, etc, etc.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387384</id>
	<title>You know who else is electro-hypersensitive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know who else is "electro-hypersensitive"?</p><p>Dracula, that's who.</p><p>And he has about as good a chance of existing as a real "electro-hypersensitive" human being.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know who else is " electro-hypersensitive " ? Dracula , that 's who.And he has about as good a chance of existing as a real " electro-hypersensitive " human being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know who else is "electro-hypersensitive"?Dracula, that's who.And he has about as good a chance of existing as a real "electro-hypersensitive" human being.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391370</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Antaeus Feldspar</author>
	<datestamp>1267986180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that class-action litigation <i>is also</i> an industry, and that industry is just as capable of commissioning "studies" not to discover scientific truth but to create a useful appearance.</p><p>In fact, I'd say litigation is <i>more</i> capable of doing so, given that they can win victories far more easily with useful appearances.  If "Big Doohickey" discovers that doohickeys causes a serious risk of seizure, they will have to try to keep <i>everyone</i> fooled that there's no danger, for <i>as long as they're selling doohickeys,</i> and they know that at any time, some researcher will look for themselves and discover the truth.  By contrast, if the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe says "hey, we've got a bunch of loonballs here who claim doohickeys are causing seizures; I think we could rake in a lot of cash from the pockets of Big Doohickey if we represent them in court," they can commission scientific-looking studies which appear to show a doohickey-seizure connection, and there's probably less than twenty people in the world who have to be sold on the idea that these studies have some sort of validity:  those are the judge(s) or jur(ies) hearing the case.  And they only have to keep up the appearance long enough to get a favorable verdict or settlement.</p><p>The litigation industry <i>definitely</i> produced dodgy scholarship to push a lawsuit in the case of the MMR vaccine (think Andrew Wakefield)) and there's evidence strongly suggesting that it has done so in the case of the alleged cellphone-cancer effect.  For example, take a look at <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3073" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org">the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org], where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer, a "sub-group" of "high-quality" studies established a "significant positive association". What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to, however, was that seven out of the eight "high-quality" studies were all done by the same researchers, a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies.  Just because "the cellphone industry" isn't the industry funding a study, doesn't mean that study isn't funded by an industry or twisted to serve that industry's agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that class-action litigation is also an industry , and that industry is just as capable of commissioning " studies " not to discover scientific truth but to create a useful appearance.In fact , I 'd say litigation is more capable of doing so , given that they can win victories far more easily with useful appearances .
If " Big Doohickey " discovers that doohickeys causes a serious risk of seizure , they will have to try to keep everyone fooled that there 's no danger , for as long as they 're selling doohickeys , and they know that at any time , some researcher will look for themselves and discover the truth .
By contrast , if the law firm of Dewey , Cheatham and Howe says " hey , we 've got a bunch of loonballs here who claim doohickeys are causing seizures ; I think we could rake in a lot of cash from the pockets of Big Doohickey if we represent them in court , " they can commission scientific-looking studies which appear to show a doohickey-seizure connection , and there 's probably less than twenty people in the world who have to be sold on the idea that these studies have some sort of validity : those are the judge ( s ) or jur ( ies ) hearing the case .
And they only have to keep up the appearance long enough to get a favorable verdict or settlement.The litigation industry definitely produced dodgy scholarship to push a lawsuit in the case of the MMR vaccine ( think Andrew Wakefield ) ) and there 's evidence strongly suggesting that it has done so in the case of the alleged cellphone-cancer effect .
For example , take a look at the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ] , where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer , a " sub-group " of " high-quality " studies established a " significant positive association " .
What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to , however , was that seven out of the eight " high-quality " studies were all done by the same researchers , a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell , and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies .
Just because " the cellphone industry " is n't the industry funding a study , does n't mean that study is n't funded by an industry or twisted to serve that industry 's agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that class-action litigation is also an industry, and that industry is just as capable of commissioning "studies" not to discover scientific truth but to create a useful appearance.In fact, I'd say litigation is more capable of doing so, given that they can win victories far more easily with useful appearances.
If "Big Doohickey" discovers that doohickeys causes a serious risk of seizure, they will have to try to keep everyone fooled that there's no danger, for as long as they're selling doohickeys, and they know that at any time, some researcher will look for themselves and discover the truth.
By contrast, if the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe says "hey, we've got a bunch of loonballs here who claim doohickeys are causing seizures; I think we could rake in a lot of cash from the pockets of Big Doohickey if we represent them in court," they can commission scientific-looking studies which appear to show a doohickey-seizure connection, and there's probably less than twenty people in the world who have to be sold on the idea that these studies have some sort of validity:  those are the judge(s) or jur(ies) hearing the case.
And they only have to keep up the appearance long enough to get a favorable verdict or settlement.The litigation industry definitely produced dodgy scholarship to push a lawsuit in the case of the MMR vaccine (think Andrew Wakefield)) and there's evidence strongly suggesting that it has done so in the case of the alleged cellphone-cancer effect.
For example, take a look at the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies [sciencebasedmedicine.org], where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer, a "sub-group" of "high-quality" studies established a "significant positive association".
What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to, however, was that seven out of the eight "high-quality" studies were all done by the same researchers, a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies.
Just because "the cellphone industry" isn't the industry funding a study, doesn't mean that study isn't funded by an industry or twisted to serve that industry's agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364</id>
	<title>Luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of those so-called "radiation sensitive" people are nothing but Luddites in disguise.</p><p>In Malaysia, there have been cases of communities in uproar, having many people claiming that they suffer from "excruciating painful headaches" to "cancer" and all that, just because there is a cellphone station nearby.</p><p>Those "radiation sensitive" people demand that the authority remove those "radiation hotspots" immediately, and it turns out that, in some of those cases, the so-called "cellphone stations" haven't even begun operation and never emit <i>any</i> radiation !</p><p>Luddites !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of those so-called " radiation sensitive " people are nothing but Luddites in disguise.In Malaysia , there have been cases of communities in uproar , having many people claiming that they suffer from " excruciating painful headaches " to " cancer " and all that , just because there is a cellphone station nearby.Those " radiation sensitive " people demand that the authority remove those " radiation hotspots " immediately , and it turns out that , in some of those cases , the so-called " cellphone stations " have n't even begun operation and never emit any radiation ! Luddites !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of those so-called "radiation sensitive" people are nothing but Luddites in disguise.In Malaysia, there have been cases of communities in uproar, having many people claiming that they suffer from "excruciating painful headaches" to "cancer" and all that, just because there is a cellphone station nearby.Those "radiation sensitive" people demand that the authority remove those "radiation hotspots" immediately, and it turns out that, in some of those cases, the so-called "cellphone stations" haven't even begun operation and never emit any radiation !Luddites !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388260</id>
	<title>It's just about getting on disability</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1267964820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just about getting on disability in Sweden.  They're the laughing stocks of the world to buy into this kind of fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just about getting on disability in Sweden .
They 're the laughing stocks of the world to buy into this kind of fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just about getting on disability in Sweden.
They're the laughing stocks of the world to buy into this kind of fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387588</id>
	<title>The gap</title>
	<author>silverdr</author>
	<datestamp>1267953720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The gap between electronics which (as a byproduct of what it is designed to do) emit microwatts of electromagnetic radiation, yards away from one's body and brain, and a cellphone emitting watts of electromagnetic radiation an inch away is at least as big if not much bigger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gap between electronics which ( as a byproduct of what it is designed to do ) emit microwatts of electromagnetic radiation , yards away from one 's body and brain , and a cellphone emitting watts of electromagnetic radiation an inch away is at least as big if not much bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gap between electronics which (as a byproduct of what it is designed to do) emit microwatts of electromagnetic radiation, yards away from one's body and brain, and a cellphone emitting watts of electromagnetic radiation an inch away is at least as big if not much bigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388568</id>
	<title>Re:i'm safe</title>
	<author>Sheen</author>
	<datestamp>1267968720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i got a rock repelling tiger to sell you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i got a rock repelling tiger to sell you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i got a rock repelling tiger to sell you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387930</id>
	<title>My take</title>
	<author>Artem Tashkinov</author>
	<datestamp>1267959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A critic in me reckons that increased cancer levels (if there are any) may be attributed to overall worsened environment conditions (pollution, etc.), decreased food quality (and mass usage of food additives) and mass hysteria related to the risks of adverse health effects caused by EMF radiation.</p><p>Anyway, I really believe anyone can make his life safer (as for now God really knows if EMF radiation can interact with our own electric fields) by using mobile phone as little as possible - I speak on my cellular for no more than two minutes a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A critic in me reckons that increased cancer levels ( if there are any ) may be attributed to overall worsened environment conditions ( pollution , etc .
) , decreased food quality ( and mass usage of food additives ) and mass hysteria related to the risks of adverse health effects caused by EMF radiation.Anyway , I really believe anyone can make his life safer ( as for now God really knows if EMF radiation can interact with our own electric fields ) by using mobile phone as little as possible - I speak on my cellular for no more than two minutes a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A critic in me reckons that increased cancer levels (if there are any) may be attributed to overall worsened environment conditions (pollution, etc.
), decreased food quality (and mass usage of food additives) and mass hysteria related to the risks of adverse health effects caused by EMF radiation.Anyway, I really believe anyone can make his life safer (as for now God really knows if EMF radiation can interact with our own electric fields) by using mobile phone as little as possible - I speak on my cellular for no more than two minutes a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390656</id>
	<title>Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1267982220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant, or not to be taken seriously.</p></div><p>I think in this case that's <em>exactly</em> what it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant , or not to be taken seriously.I think in this case that 's exactly what it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant, or not to be taken seriously.I think in this case that's exactly what it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387618</id>
	<title>i'm safe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267954260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My chiropractor assures me that my bag of crystals and wrist magnets will protect me.  Besides, with a little acupuncture I'm good as new, plus I never microwave food so I get lots of anti-oxidants.  Well, I'm off to sharpen my razor by putting it under a paper pyramid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My chiropractor assures me that my bag of crystals and wrist magnets will protect me .
Besides , with a little acupuncture I 'm good as new , plus I never microwave food so I get lots of anti-oxidants .
Well , I 'm off to sharpen my razor by putting it under a paper pyramid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My chiropractor assures me that my bag of crystals and wrist magnets will protect me.
Besides, with a little acupuncture I'm good as new, plus I never microwave food so I get lots of anti-oxidants.
Well, I'm off to sharpen my razor by putting it under a paper pyramid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387980</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1267960560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle (or whatever it is that makes the money).</i> <br> <br>
Oh yes.  There's a lot of psychology on the subject.  Confirmation bias - people assign more weight to evidence that supports their prejudices.  For example, if someone survives a major disaster, religious types will point to the miracle, whereas if someone is killed in improbable circumstances, few religious types will give God the credit for that one.<br> <br>
You even see the same ting with climate change deniers, and people who justify unhealthy behaviour on account of debunked research showing it's healthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle ( or whatever it is that makes the money ) .
Oh yes .
There 's a lot of psychology on the subject .
Confirmation bias - people assign more weight to evidence that supports their prejudices .
For example , if someone survives a major disaster , religious types will point to the miracle , whereas if someone is killed in improbable circumstances , few religious types will give God the credit for that one .
You even see the same ting with climate change deniers , and people who justify unhealthy behaviour on account of debunked research showing it 's healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle (or whatever it is that makes the money).
Oh yes.
There's a lot of psychology on the subject.
Confirmation bias - people assign more weight to evidence that supports their prejudices.
For example, if someone survives a major disaster, religious types will point to the miracle, whereas if someone is killed in improbable circumstances, few religious types will give God the credit for that one.
You even see the same ting with climate change deniers, and people who justify unhealthy behaviour on account of debunked research showing it's healthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393676</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>agrif</author>
	<datestamp>1267956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As Lessig said in his latest <a href="http://blip.tv/file/3283837" title="blip.tv">website chat</a> [blip.tv], 75\% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.</p></div><p>I would like say that (as I understand it) Lessig pointed this out to get the obvious reaction from his audience ("Oh wow, the cell phone industry is trying to lie to us!"). He wanted to point out that this is the reaction people <em>always</em> have when they see something like this, and to examine what in our society causes that mistrust and how we may be able to fix it. He uses this specifically when he talks about corporate funding for political campaigns, later on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Lessig said in his latest website chat [ blip.tv ] , 75 \ % of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.I would like say that ( as I understand it ) Lessig pointed this out to get the obvious reaction from his audience ( " Oh wow , the cell phone industry is trying to lie to us ! " ) .
He wanted to point out that this is the reaction people always have when they see something like this , and to examine what in our society causes that mistrust and how we may be able to fix it .
He uses this specifically when he talks about corporate funding for political campaigns , later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Lessig said in his latest website chat [blip.tv], 75\% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.I would like say that (as I understand it) Lessig pointed this out to get the obvious reaction from his audience ("Oh wow, the cell phone industry is trying to lie to us!").
He wanted to point out that this is the reaction people always have when they see something like this, and to examine what in our society causes that mistrust and how we may be able to fix it.
He uses this specifically when he talks about corporate funding for political campaigns, later on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780</id>
	<title>Re:For all those hyper-electrosensitives out there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had some back pain once, and a friend suggested healing crystals. Suddenly I became aware of a pain in the region just below my back and above my legs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had some back pain once , and a friend suggested healing crystals .
Suddenly I became aware of a pain in the region just below my back and above my legs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had some back pain once, and a friend suggested healing crystals.
Suddenly I became aware of a pain in the region just below my back and above my legs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387382</id>
	<title>Reasons I'm Not Reading This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1: "GQ"<br>2: "PopSci"<br>3: The entire summary reads like a news announcer sounds. I can actually hear in my head as I read it, my inner voice's pitch changes exactly like a certain bored-out-of-her-skull Asian Reporter.<br>4: kdawson<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(<br>5:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>6: Profit! (wouldn't be a list on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. without it!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : " GQ " 2 : " PopSci " 3 : The entire summary reads like a news announcer sounds .
I can actually hear in my head as I read it , my inner voice 's pitch changes exactly like a certain bored-out-of-her-skull Asian Reporter.4 : kdawson : ( 5 : ...6 : Profit !
( would n't be a list on / .
without it !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: "GQ"2: "PopSci"3: The entire summary reads like a news announcer sounds.
I can actually hear in my head as I read it, my inner voice's pitch changes exactly like a certain bored-out-of-her-skull Asian Reporter.4: kdawson :(5: ...6: Profit!
(wouldn't be a list on /.
without it!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387372</id>
	<title>"Promote" It?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much "promotion" does it take to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much " promotion " does it take to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much "promotion" does it take to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387698</id>
	<title>Case study is worthlesss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author seems convinced that Per Segerb&#228;ck is allergic to radio waves, even though Segerb&#228;ck doesn't demonstrate this in a blind test, and a psychosomatic explanation looms large behind every incident described. This article is worthless to those looking for scientific evidence on the subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author seems convinced that Per Segerb   ck is allergic to radio waves , even though Segerb   ck does n't demonstrate this in a blind test , and a psychosomatic explanation looms large behind every incident described .
This article is worthless to those looking for scientific evidence on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author seems convinced that Per Segerbäck is allergic to radio waves, even though Segerbäck doesn't demonstrate this in a blind test, and a psychosomatic explanation looms large behind every incident described.
This article is worthless to those looking for scientific evidence on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478</id>
	<title>For all those hyper-electrosensitives out there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267995360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out your pharmacy. I'm fairly sure there are some Bach flowers tinctures available by now that can cure the problem. If everything fails, get a few healing crystals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out your pharmacy .
I 'm fairly sure there are some Bach flowers tinctures available by now that can cure the problem .
If everything fails , get a few healing crystals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out your pharmacy.
I'm fairly sure there are some Bach flowers tinctures available by now that can cure the problem.
If everything fails, get a few healing crystals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31403738</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268078940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you. Follow the money and one will discover the orignal intent.<br>I really want to know what will happen to the communications infrastructure if some link is found.<br>As I have said before I am a rf technician that works for all the msp's and if there is a link then my cworkers and I will be among the first to know. Either that or we will develop mutations before anyone else and the rest of you will be screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
Follow the money and one will discover the orignal intent.I really want to know what will happen to the communications infrastructure if some link is found.As I have said before I am a rf technician that works for all the msp 's and if there is a link then my cworkers and I will be among the first to know .
Either that or we will develop mutations before anyone else and the rest of you will be screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
Follow the money and one will discover the orignal intent.I really want to know what will happen to the communications infrastructure if some link is found.As I have said before I am a rf technician that works for all the msp's and if there is a link then my cworkers and I will be among the first to know.
Either that or we will develop mutations before anyone else and the rest of you will be screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387818</id>
	<title>Re:Typical</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1267957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it requires a room which is 100\% free from other radiation sources.</i></p><p>One may wonder how the subjects deal with the comparatively strong field that usually surrounds them in the form of earth's magnetic field. Better sit very... very... still.</p><p><i>solved through extensive use of mind-altering drugs.</i></p><p>Many modern variants which, ironically, are barely better than placebo...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it requires a room which is 100 \ % free from other radiation sources.One may wonder how the subjects deal with the comparatively strong field that usually surrounds them in the form of earth 's magnetic field .
Better sit very... very... still.solved through extensive use of mind-altering drugs.Many modern variants which , ironically , are barely better than placebo.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it requires a room which is 100\% free from other radiation sources.One may wonder how the subjects deal with the comparatively strong field that usually surrounds them in the form of earth's magnetic field.
Better sit very... very... still.solved through extensive use of mind-altering drugs.Many modern variants which, ironically, are barely better than placebo...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391354</id>
	<title>Something to consider...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the massive amount of genetic variation in the human population,  it is very possible that certain people may have an adverse reaction to EMF's that is indeed genuine.  It doesn't mean that the entire world is harming themselves with EMF's,  it would just mean that some unlucky ones are indeed affected by it, and would need to isolate themselves from it.  I certainly don't believe that everyone who says they have this disorder indeed have it,  but just that there are possible some who are actually affected.</p><p>You become a little more open minded to these things when you have a disorder that many people don't believe in...I personally have MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity) and have adverse reactions in response to most synthetic and natural chemicals that have a detectable odor.  I have no reaction at all to EMF's,  which is nice because I do love technology...but it would be foolish to dismiss something just because we can't currently explain it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the massive amount of genetic variation in the human population , it is very possible that certain people may have an adverse reaction to EMF 's that is indeed genuine .
It does n't mean that the entire world is harming themselves with EMF 's , it would just mean that some unlucky ones are indeed affected by it , and would need to isolate themselves from it .
I certainly do n't believe that everyone who says they have this disorder indeed have it , but just that there are possible some who are actually affected.You become a little more open minded to these things when you have a disorder that many people do n't believe in...I personally have MCS ( multiple chemical sensitivity ) and have adverse reactions in response to most synthetic and natural chemicals that have a detectable odor .
I have no reaction at all to EMF 's , which is nice because I do love technology...but it would be foolish to dismiss something just because we ca n't currently explain it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the massive amount of genetic variation in the human population,  it is very possible that certain people may have an adverse reaction to EMF's that is indeed genuine.
It doesn't mean that the entire world is harming themselves with EMF's,  it would just mean that some unlucky ones are indeed affected by it, and would need to isolate themselves from it.
I certainly don't believe that everyone who says they have this disorder indeed have it,  but just that there are possible some who are actually affected.You become a little more open minded to these things when you have a disorder that many people don't believe in...I personally have MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity) and have adverse reactions in response to most synthetic and natural chemicals that have a detectable odor.
I have no reaction at all to EMF's,  which is nice because I do love technology...but it would be foolish to dismiss something just because we can't currently explain it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31418964</id>
	<title>Re:Case study is worthlesss</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1268128560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Particularly the inconsistencies in his symptoms.  The biggest one is that he has to encase his computer and mouse in a faraday cage, but not his computer monitor?  The photographer needed to use a film camera, yet the lighting in his house is ok (but not all?).  And why would a 12V battery (DC, doesn't emit EMR) need to be buried?  A DC-AC inverter would surely create more EMR than a 60Hz transmission line.
</p><p>I'm still willing to admit that there is a mechanism that would cause this kind of issue (perhaps initial high-dose EMR as in this case causes damage), but I agree that a double-blind study is required to verify this isn't psychosomatic.  Assuming there are some who have legitimate sensitivity, we need to separate the physical from the mental causes before we can do real research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Particularly the inconsistencies in his symptoms .
The biggest one is that he has to encase his computer and mouse in a faraday cage , but not his computer monitor ?
The photographer needed to use a film camera , yet the lighting in his house is ok ( but not all ? ) .
And why would a 12V battery ( DC , does n't emit EMR ) need to be buried ?
A DC-AC inverter would surely create more EMR than a 60Hz transmission line .
I 'm still willing to admit that there is a mechanism that would cause this kind of issue ( perhaps initial high-dose EMR as in this case causes damage ) , but I agree that a double-blind study is required to verify this is n't psychosomatic .
Assuming there are some who have legitimate sensitivity , we need to separate the physical from the mental causes before we can do real research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Particularly the inconsistencies in his symptoms.
The biggest one is that he has to encase his computer and mouse in a faraday cage, but not his computer monitor?
The photographer needed to use a film camera, yet the lighting in his house is ok (but not all?).
And why would a 12V battery (DC, doesn't emit EMR) need to be buried?
A DC-AC inverter would surely create more EMR than a 60Hz transmission line.
I'm still willing to admit that there is a mechanism that would cause this kind of issue (perhaps initial high-dose EMR as in this case causes damage), but I agree that a double-blind study is required to verify this isn't psychosomatic.
Assuming there are some who have legitimate sensitivity, we need to separate the physical from the mental causes before we can do real research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31413776</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy just saying luddites (was: Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1268150700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While everyone is doing the ooohhhhhh! cellphone radiation / cancer whine, they're really barking up the wrong tower.
<p>
Much better to look at the effects that are a lot more likely.
</p><p>
More likely effects would be heating effects from such near proximity to a RF source, or possible cellular effects or changes.
</p><p>
While cell phones are not high power devices, you are holding them right against the ear unless you are using  a headset. This puts you in the near field of the RF emissions, and it's fairly powerful.
</p><p>
There have been studies that show some cellular effects of RF fields that might be a problem. I don't have the cites here, I'd looked them up a year or two ago.
</p><p>
This is going to sound snarky, but I think that there is a fair chance that cell phone use makes a person at least temporarily stupid. I've seen too much walking out into heavy traffic, too much almost running into people or driving 70 mph in a 35 mph zone by people who wouldn't ordinarily do that. And they all have a cell pasted to the head. I don't completely buy distraction, because a lot of people are listening to radios, or Ipods and they don't do that.
</p><p>
As for cell phone towers, your so far away that there are no effects. That's tinfoil hat territory.
</p><p>
Regulate or don't regulate them, I don't particularly care. I use my cell for only seconds at a time, its for work and letting the family know where I'm at - my latest phone's counter shows 20 minutes total time afer almost 2 years - my wife does more than that in a half day, I wish she wouldn't but its a free country.
</p><p>
Use your cells without fear kids. and as long and often as you want, then after 20 or 30 years we'll know a little more, My money is on cellular effects, and no cancer whatsoever. I'll see if I'm right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While everyone is doing the ooohhhhhh !
cellphone radiation / cancer whine , they 're really barking up the wrong tower .
Much better to look at the effects that are a lot more likely .
More likely effects would be heating effects from such near proximity to a RF source , or possible cellular effects or changes .
While cell phones are not high power devices , you are holding them right against the ear unless you are using a headset .
This puts you in the near field of the RF emissions , and it 's fairly powerful .
There have been studies that show some cellular effects of RF fields that might be a problem .
I do n't have the cites here , I 'd looked them up a year or two ago .
This is going to sound snarky , but I think that there is a fair chance that cell phone use makes a person at least temporarily stupid .
I 've seen too much walking out into heavy traffic , too much almost running into people or driving 70 mph in a 35 mph zone by people who would n't ordinarily do that .
And they all have a cell pasted to the head .
I do n't completely buy distraction , because a lot of people are listening to radios , or Ipods and they do n't do that .
As for cell phone towers , your so far away that there are no effects .
That 's tinfoil hat territory .
Regulate or do n't regulate them , I do n't particularly care .
I use my cell for only seconds at a time , its for work and letting the family know where I 'm at - my latest phone 's counter shows 20 minutes total time afer almost 2 years - my wife does more than that in a half day , I wish she would n't but its a free country .
Use your cells without fear kids .
and as long and often as you want , then after 20 or 30 years we 'll know a little more , My money is on cellular effects , and no cancer whatsoever .
I 'll see if I 'm right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While everyone is doing the ooohhhhhh!
cellphone radiation / cancer whine, they're really barking up the wrong tower.
Much better to look at the effects that are a lot more likely.
More likely effects would be heating effects from such near proximity to a RF source, or possible cellular effects or changes.
While cell phones are not high power devices, you are holding them right against the ear unless you are using  a headset.
This puts you in the near field of the RF emissions, and it's fairly powerful.
There have been studies that show some cellular effects of RF fields that might be a problem.
I don't have the cites here, I'd looked them up a year or two ago.
This is going to sound snarky, but I think that there is a fair chance that cell phone use makes a person at least temporarily stupid.
I've seen too much walking out into heavy traffic, too much almost running into people or driving 70 mph in a 35 mph zone by people who wouldn't ordinarily do that.
And they all have a cell pasted to the head.
I don't completely buy distraction, because a lot of people are listening to radios, or Ipods and they don't do that.
As for cell phone towers, your so far away that there are no effects.
That's tinfoil hat territory.
Regulate or don't regulate them, I don't particularly care.
I use my cell for only seconds at a time, its for work and letting the family know where I'm at - my latest phone's counter shows 20 minutes total time afer almost 2 years - my wife does more than that in a half day, I wish she wouldn't but its a free country.
Use your cells without fear kids.
and as long and often as you want, then after 20 or 30 years we'll know a little more, My money is on cellular effects, and no cancer whatsoever.
I'll see if I'm right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410</id>
	<title>Re:Luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name-calling isn't going to help anyone. The fact of the matter is, to some people hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real phenomenon. It has been shown pretty conclusively that the electromagnetic radiation itself does not cause the issues (in one study researchers used an inert box with blinking lights on it to produce the same effect), but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant, or not to be taken seriously. That would be like telling a schizophrenic "none of that stuff is real, shut up".</p><p>Rather than laughing at these people, we should consider their problem a mental disorder and treat it accordingly. This does, of course, mean that you consider the condition the problem, not the EM sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name-calling is n't going to help anyone .
The fact of the matter is , to some people hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real phenomenon .
It has been shown pretty conclusively that the electromagnetic radiation itself does not cause the issues ( in one study researchers used an inert box with blinking lights on it to produce the same effect ) , but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant , or not to be taken seriously .
That would be like telling a schizophrenic " none of that stuff is real , shut up " .Rather than laughing at these people , we should consider their problem a mental disorder and treat it accordingly .
This does , of course , mean that you consider the condition the problem , not the EM sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name-calling isn't going to help anyone.
The fact of the matter is, to some people hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real phenomenon.
It has been shown pretty conclusively that the electromagnetic radiation itself does not cause the issues (in one study researchers used an inert box with blinking lights on it to produce the same effect), but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant, or not to be taken seriously.
That would be like telling a schizophrenic "none of that stuff is real, shut up".Rather than laughing at these people, we should consider their problem a mental disorder and treat it accordingly.
This does, of course, mean that you consider the condition the problem, not the EM sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638</id>
	<title>On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267954680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> the other han,d there is a tremendous psychological incentive here to wishfully believe that there is no danger-- because the proposition that cellphone radiation near your head (or wifi for that matter) actually is dangerous leads to thoughts horrific to contemplate-- namely that you'd have to stop/reduce the amount of calls you do, or worse, to live in a wifi-less world.</p><p>I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle (or whatever it is that makes the money).</p><p>So I wonder if any of that bias leads to a more ready dismissal of the cellphone/cancer danger.  As Lessig said in his latest <a href="http://blip.tv/file/3283837" title="blip.tv" rel="nofollow">website chat</a> [blip.tv], 75\% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the other han,d there is a tremendous psychological incentive here to wishfully believe that there is no danger-- because the proposition that cellphone radiation near your head ( or wifi for that matter ) actually is dangerous leads to thoughts horrific to contemplate-- namely that you 'd have to stop/reduce the amount of calls you do , or worse , to live in a wifi-less world.I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle ( or whatever it is that makes the money ) .So I wonder if any of that bias leads to a more ready dismissal of the cellphone/cancer danger .
As Lessig said in his latest website chat [ blip.tv ] , 75 \ % of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the other han,d there is a tremendous psychological incentive here to wishfully believe that there is no danger-- because the proposition that cellphone radiation near your head (or wifi for that matter) actually is dangerous leads to thoughts horrific to contemplate-- namely that you'd have to stop/reduce the amount of calls you do, or worse, to live in a wifi-less world.I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle (or whatever it is that makes the money).So I wonder if any of that bias leads to a more ready dismissal of the cellphone/cancer danger.
As Lessig said in his latest website chat [blip.tv], 75\% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387754</id>
	<title>Re:Typical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think feeding them LSD or the like would actually benefit them any...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think feeding them LSD or the like would actually benefit them any.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think feeding them LSD or the like would actually benefit them any...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388118</id>
	<title>If it's a balanced perspective you want...</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1267962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... then I guess we'd better wait for the Fox News coverage!  They'll be fair, too!</p><p>Glenn Beck: "What I wanna know is, why don't these cell phone companies deny this rumor that their phones are cooking my brain?  I'm not saying my brain is actually fried, but it sure feels that way and why won't they deny it?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... then I guess we 'd better wait for the Fox News coverage !
They 'll be fair , too ! Glenn Beck : " What I wan na know is , why do n't these cell phone companies deny this rumor that their phones are cooking my brain ?
I 'm not saying my brain is actually fried , but it sure feels that way and why wo n't they deny it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... then I guess we'd better wait for the Fox News coverage!
They'll be fair, too!Glenn Beck: "What I wanna know is, why don't these cell phone companies deny this rumor that their phones are cooking my brain?
I'm not saying my brain is actually fried, but it sure feels that way and why won't they deny it?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31392726</id>
	<title>I have a name for that</title>
	<author>DadLeopard</author>
	<datestamp>1267993560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I call that the Art Bell effect, after the man that legitimized the Outer Fringe whackos and Tin Foil Hat wearers, by showing them that they were not alone and that there was a whole community that believed in the same kind of things that they did! So Microwave sufferers, Pyramid power, hidden rooms created by Space Aliens under the Sphinx, bottomless holes guarded by the Army, Black Helicopters, Alien Abductions, You name it, they all were accepted as legitimate on his show!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call that the Art Bell effect , after the man that legitimized the Outer Fringe whackos and Tin Foil Hat wearers , by showing them that they were not alone and that there was a whole community that believed in the same kind of things that they did !
So Microwave sufferers , Pyramid power , hidden rooms created by Space Aliens under the Sphinx , bottomless holes guarded by the Army , Black Helicopters , Alien Abductions , You name it , they all were accepted as legitimate on his show !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call that the Art Bell effect, after the man that legitimized the Outer Fringe whackos and Tin Foil Hat wearers, by showing them that they were not alone and that there was a whole community that believed in the same kind of things that they did!
So Microwave sufferers, Pyramid power, hidden rooms created by Space Aliens under the Sphinx, bottomless holes guarded by the Army, Black Helicopters, Alien Abductions, You name it, they all were accepted as legitimate on his show!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387998</id>
	<title>Re:"unable to detect radiation"?</title>
	<author>nido</author>
	<datestamp>1267960980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reasonable post amongst a hundred scoffers. I salute you, good sir.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I wonder how the technology worshipers among us would scientifically study this issue. You'd have to isolate the influence of radio waves on a human body-system. The problem is, of course, finding controls in a radio-free, transient electromagnetic field-free, man-made-chemical-free world...</p><p>Science is hard to do when your experiment has a billion variables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reasonable post amongst a hundred scoffers .
I salute you , good sir .
: ) I wonder how the technology worshipers among us would scientifically study this issue .
You 'd have to isolate the influence of radio waves on a human body-system .
The problem is , of course , finding controls in a radio-free , transient electromagnetic field-free , man-made-chemical-free world...Science is hard to do when your experiment has a billion variables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reasonable post amongst a hundred scoffers.
I salute you, good sir.
:)I wonder how the technology worshipers among us would scientifically study this issue.
You'd have to isolate the influence of radio waves on a human body-system.
The problem is, of course, finding controls in a radio-free, transient electromagnetic field-free, man-made-chemical-free world...Science is hard to do when your experiment has a billion variables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356</id>
	<title>Typical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility</p></div><p>Which just goes to show how much the tinfoil hat actively interferes with the thought process.... In order to conduct a valid scientific experiment on such matters, it requires a room which is 100\% free from other radiation sources. Which means the rooms in the facility are anything BUT "electronics-laden".</p><p>But we're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very <i>least</i> of these people's problems, which are usually only solved through extensive use of mind-altering drugs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facilityWhich just goes to show how much the tinfoil hat actively interferes with the thought process.... In order to conduct a valid scientific experiment on such matters , it requires a room which is 100 \ % free from other radiation sources .
Which means the rooms in the facility are anything BUT " electronics-laden " .But we 're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least of these people 's problems , which are usually only solved through extensive use of mind-altering drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facilityWhich just goes to show how much the tinfoil hat actively interferes with the thought process.... In order to conduct a valid scientific experiment on such matters, it requires a room which is 100\% free from other radiation sources.
Which means the rooms in the facility are anything BUT "electronics-laden".But we're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least of these people's problems, which are usually only solved through extensive use of mind-altering drugs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391600</id>
	<title>Re:For all those hyper-electrosensitives out there</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267987320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's nothing. Until I applied the healing crystal I didn't even know that I had pain in the region!</p><p>It wasn't a healing crystal but a building brick and it was not placed on me but hurled at me, but still...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing .
Until I applied the healing crystal I did n't even know that I had pain in the region ! It was n't a healing crystal but a building brick and it was not placed on me but hurled at me , but still.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nothing.
Until I applied the healing crystal I didn't even know that I had pain in the region!It wasn't a healing crystal but a building brick and it was not placed on me but hurled at me, but still...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31401344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31403738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31404164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31413776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31418964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31396900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31396956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31392726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31389260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0123237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31404164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31413776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31401344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31403738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31393676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31396900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31391600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31389260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31396956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31388454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31390814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31392726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31387698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31418964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0123237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0123237.31389970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
