<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_1625241</id>
	<title>Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259947380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mclearn sends in news of "a very large, 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia" that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/no-tumour-link-to-mobile-phones-says-study-20091204-kaqs.html">shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumors</a>. <i>"Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumors did not become any more common during this time, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some activist groups and a few researchers have raised concerns about a link between mobile phones and several kinds of cancer, including brain tumors, although years of research have failed to establish a connection. ... 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote. Overall, there was no significant pattern."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mclearn sends in news of " a very large , 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia " that shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumors .
" Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward , brain tumors did not become any more common during this time , the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute .
Some activist groups and a few researchers have raised concerns about a link between mobile phones and several kinds of cancer , including brain tumors , although years of research have failed to establish a connection .
... 'From 1974 to 2003 , the incidence rate of glioma ( a type of brain tumor ) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women, ' they wrote .
Overall , there was no significant pattern .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mclearn sends in news of "a very large, 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia" that shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumors.
"Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumors did not become any more common during this time, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Some activist groups and a few researchers have raised concerns about a link between mobile phones and several kinds of cancer, including brain tumors, although years of research have failed to establish a connection.
... 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote.
Overall, there was no significant pattern.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30333976</id>
	<title>Re:BAH! EXPERTS! WHAT DO THEY KNOW?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1260013980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, promise to be more respectful of authority and less skeptical next time.  I heard CNN said dogshit tastes good, I'm out to try a mouthful right now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , promise to be more respectful of authority and less skeptical next time .
I heard CNN said dogshit tastes good , I 'm out to try a mouthful right now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, promise to be more respectful of authority and less skeptical next time.
I heard CNN said dogshit tastes good, I'm out to try a mouthful right now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326168</id>
	<title>Perhaps you overestimate...</title>
	<author>uptownguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259953080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units.</i> </p><p>I'm blowing an earlier moderation to a post so I can comment on this.  I think that perhaps you overestimate your fellow members of society.  The tolerance of most people for <i>anything</i> even remotely resembling <b>detail</b> is pretty low.  You can test this by trying to have a discussion with family/friends/people on the bus about why firewalls are important or why running everything as root/admin may not make for the most secure model.  Eyes will glaze over.  Quickly.</p><p><i>They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science.</i> </p><p>Here's the thing: There is no <b>they</b>.  "They" is really us.  "We" could be doing any of this.  But the fact is, our mainstream culture ISN'T that way because for the most part, WE aren't that way.  In the meantime, there is a wealth of information out there for us outliers to FIND that information.  Forums like slashdot where you CAN find the relevant terms, links to the paper, etc.</p><p>There is sensationalism because sensationalism sells.  Sensationalism sells because that is what people WANT.  They vote what they want with their wallets and their eyeballs.  The "vast majority of people" want exactly what they are getting and the market delivers it to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress , but in proper SI units .
I 'm blowing an earlier moderation to a post so I can comment on this .
I think that perhaps you overestimate your fellow members of society .
The tolerance of most people for anything even remotely resembling detail is pretty low .
You can test this by trying to have a discussion with family/friends/people on the bus about why firewalls are important or why running everything as root/admin may not make for the most secure model .
Eyes will glaze over .
Quickly.They could be using , omg , hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science .
Here 's the thing : There is no they .
" They " is really us .
" We " could be doing any of this .
But the fact is , our mainstream culture IS N'T that way because for the most part , WE are n't that way .
In the meantime , there is a wealth of information out there for us outliers to FIND that information .
Forums like slashdot where you CAN find the relevant terms , links to the paper , etc.There is sensationalism because sensationalism sells .
Sensationalism sells because that is what people WANT .
They vote what they want with their wallets and their eyeballs .
The " vast majority of people " want exactly what they are getting and the market delivers it to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units.
I'm blowing an earlier moderation to a post so I can comment on this.
I think that perhaps you overestimate your fellow members of society.
The tolerance of most people for anything even remotely resembling detail is pretty low.
You can test this by trying to have a discussion with family/friends/people on the bus about why firewalls are important or why running everything as root/admin may not make for the most secure model.
Eyes will glaze over.
Quickly.They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science.
Here's the thing: There is no they.
"They" is really us.
"We" could be doing any of this.
But the fact is, our mainstream culture ISN'T that way because for the most part, WE aren't that way.
In the meantime, there is a wealth of information out there for us outliers to FIND that information.
Forums like slashdot where you CAN find the relevant terms, links to the paper, etc.There is sensationalism because sensationalism sells.
Sensationalism sells because that is what people WANT.
They vote what they want with their wallets and their eyeballs.
The "vast majority of people" want exactly what they are getting and the market delivers it to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259951460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates? </i></p><p>No, radio waves are non-ionizing.</p><p><i>Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?</i></p><p>You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates ?
No , radio waves are non-ionizing.Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine ? You might get cooked as in a microwave , but no cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?
No, radio waves are non-ionizing.Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332078</id>
	<title>Cellphones DO cause brain damage</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1259940720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My observation, when cell phones first came out, was that they obviously caused brain damage. Back then, you didn't even need to have them turned on!  People who owned them acted weird.   Today, it's an epidemic: just look at how people use cell phones in restaurants, cars, and other settings, and tell me that they are not exhibiting brain damage!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My observation , when cell phones first came out , was that they obviously caused brain damage .
Back then , you did n't even need to have them turned on !
People who owned them acted weird .
Today , it 's an epidemic : just look at how people use cell phones in restaurants , cars , and other settings , and tell me that they are not exhibiting brain damage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My observation, when cell phones first came out, was that they obviously caused brain damage.
Back then, you didn't even need to have them turned on!
People who owned them acted weird.
Today, it's an epidemic: just look at how people use cell phones in restaurants, cars, and other settings, and tell me that they are not exhibiting brain damage!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326502</id>
	<title>Re:Yes,But....</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259954340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The peer review process already takes care of that. If the data is correct, and the analysis is correct, then the conclusions are likely correct. If you still think the funding matters, then repeat the experiment. If you get the same results, then repeat it again. Repeat as much as you want. If you're still getting the same results, then accept the conclusions as stated.</p><p>Complaining about who funded the research is a waste of effort. <i>Somebody</i> with a stake in the results funded the research; otherwise, why did they spend the money? Governments might invest in research without a specific reason, but there's only so much government funding to go around, and for high political studies, people will still claim there was a special interest somewhere in the background. It's all nonsense--either find a flaw in the study itself or accept the results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The peer review process already takes care of that .
If the data is correct , and the analysis is correct , then the conclusions are likely correct .
If you still think the funding matters , then repeat the experiment .
If you get the same results , then repeat it again .
Repeat as much as you want .
If you 're still getting the same results , then accept the conclusions as stated.Complaining about who funded the research is a waste of effort .
Somebody with a stake in the results funded the research ; otherwise , why did they spend the money ?
Governments might invest in research without a specific reason , but there 's only so much government funding to go around , and for high political studies , people will still claim there was a special interest somewhere in the background .
It 's all nonsense--either find a flaw in the study itself or accept the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The peer review process already takes care of that.
If the data is correct, and the analysis is correct, then the conclusions are likely correct.
If you still think the funding matters, then repeat the experiment.
If you get the same results, then repeat it again.
Repeat as much as you want.
If you're still getting the same results, then accept the conclusions as stated.Complaining about who funded the research is a waste of effort.
Somebody with a stake in the results funded the research; otherwise, why did they spend the money?
Governments might invest in research without a specific reason, but there's only so much government funding to go around, and for high political studies, people will still claim there was a special interest somewhere in the background.
It's all nonsense--either find a flaw in the study itself or accept the results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326832</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1259955600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?"</p><p>No, radio waves are non-ionizing.</p><p>"Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?"</p><p>You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.</p></div><p>Given the sheer volume of things that appear to cause cancer besides ionizing radiation, and given difficulties in detecting some forms of subtle DNA damage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that it -can't- cause cancer.</p><p>The first part I have no dispute with, I'm not saying there is evidence that RF causes cancer.  But "You could live on a radio tower and have no cancer" isn't a safe conclusion since we can't prove the negative "RF can not cause cancer."</p><p>Can RF cause cancer via inactivation of specific cell cycle inhibitors?  I doubt there is evidence that they can, I doubt even more that there is evidence that they can't.</p><p>In the absence of anything suggesting that they can or can', we obviously shouldn't build a lead-lined house, but we probably shouldn't live on a radio tower unless there's a good reason to either.  As far as more realistic concerns go, I still hold my phone up to my ear, but I'm a little paranoid about it.  (More paranoid about my cell phone being next to my nuts and prostate, but that is just paranoia.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates ?
" No , radio waves are non-ionizing .
" Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine ?
" You might get cooked as in a microwave , but no cancer.Given the sheer volume of things that appear to cause cancer besides ionizing radiation , and given difficulties in detecting some forms of subtle DNA damage , I 'd be hesitant to conclude that it -ca n't- cause cancer.The first part I have no dispute with , I 'm not saying there is evidence that RF causes cancer .
But " You could live on a radio tower and have no cancer " is n't a safe conclusion since we ca n't prove the negative " RF can not cause cancer .
" Can RF cause cancer via inactivation of specific cell cycle inhibitors ?
I doubt there is evidence that they can , I doubt even more that there is evidence that they ca n't.In the absence of anything suggesting that they can or can ' , we obviously should n't build a lead-lined house , but we probably should n't live on a radio tower unless there 's a good reason to either .
As far as more realistic concerns go , I still hold my phone up to my ear , but I 'm a little paranoid about it .
( More paranoid about my cell phone being next to my nuts and prostate , but that is just paranoia .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?
"No, radio waves are non-ionizing.
"Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?
"You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.Given the sheer volume of things that appear to cause cancer besides ionizing radiation, and given difficulties in detecting some forms of subtle DNA damage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that it -can't- cause cancer.The first part I have no dispute with, I'm not saying there is evidence that RF causes cancer.
But "You could live on a radio tower and have no cancer" isn't a safe conclusion since we can't prove the negative "RF can not cause cancer.
"Can RF cause cancer via inactivation of specific cell cycle inhibitors?
I doubt there is evidence that they can, I doubt even more that there is evidence that they can't.In the absence of anything suggesting that they can or can', we obviously shouldn't build a lead-lined house, but we probably shouldn't live on a radio tower unless there's a good reason to either.
As far as more realistic concerns go, I still hold my phone up to my ear, but I'm a little paranoid about it.
(More paranoid about my cell phone being next to my nuts and prostate, but that is just paranoia.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326924</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1259955960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't really use "correlation is not causation" line to assert a lack of something though.</p><p>The original assertion is that cell phones can cause cancer.  If the incidence of cancer is not going up in any meaningful way though then the assertion is completely baseless.  It'd be like me yelling that eating tree bark makes you taller and when no data supports that claiming "Yeah but other factors might be at work making you shorter again.".  Ok, yeah that's a remote possibility, but it's a baseless assumption that, lacking any evidence to support it, should be discarded.  Otherwise the entire premise of science goes out the window because you could always just blame any results on "potential other factors" that didn't get measured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't really use " correlation is not causation " line to assert a lack of something though.The original assertion is that cell phones can cause cancer .
If the incidence of cancer is not going up in any meaningful way though then the assertion is completely baseless .
It 'd be like me yelling that eating tree bark makes you taller and when no data supports that claiming " Yeah but other factors might be at work making you shorter again. " .
Ok , yeah that 's a remote possibility , but it 's a baseless assumption that , lacking any evidence to support it , should be discarded .
Otherwise the entire premise of science goes out the window because you could always just blame any results on " potential other factors " that did n't get measured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't really use "correlation is not causation" line to assert a lack of something though.The original assertion is that cell phones can cause cancer.
If the incidence of cancer is not going up in any meaningful way though then the assertion is completely baseless.
It'd be like me yelling that eating tree bark makes you taller and when no data supports that claiming "Yeah but other factors might be at work making you shorter again.".
Ok, yeah that's a remote possibility, but it's a baseless assumption that, lacking any evidence to support it, should be discarded.
Otherwise the entire premise of science goes out the window because you could always just blame any results on "potential other factors" that didn't get measured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Admiralbumblebee</author>
	<datestamp>1259951340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glioma != "brain tumors". There are many other forms of brain tumors which this study does not cover.

The story should be "No link between glioma and cell phone usage found."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glioma ! = " brain tumors " .
There are many other forms of brain tumors which this study does not cover .
The story should be " No link between glioma and cell phone usage found .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glioma != "brain tumors".
There are many other forms of brain tumors which this study does not cover.
The story should be "No link between glioma and cell phone usage found.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</id>
	<title>extremes</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1259951160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that <i>are</i> known to increase cancer rates? Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates ?
Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?
Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328028</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1259917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many times must this stupid accusation be debunked before people will wake up and realize this is not true. It's amazing how stupid people are!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times must this stupid accusation be debunked before people will wake up and realize this is not true .
It 's amazing how stupid people are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times must this stupid accusation be debunked before people will wake up and realize this is not true.
It's amazing how stupid people are!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326852</id>
	<title>Procrustean bed</title>
	<author>LandruBek</author>
	<datestamp>1259955660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Everything is a risk.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except, apparently, cellphones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything is a risk.Except , apparently , cellphones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything is a risk.Except, apparently, cellphones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327732</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1259959440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but why wont he just show the LONG FORM birth certificate... oh, sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but why wont he just show the LONG FORM birth certificate... oh , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but why wont he just show the LONG FORM birth certificate... oh, sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327060</id>
	<title>Re:Verdict: Inconclusive</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1259956440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that's not true.  A lack of correlation MUST mean that there is no direct causal relation between the two things you are studying.  Otherwise, there would be some correlation.  If there is indeed a causal relation, but your experimental data shows no correlation, it means that your experiment is not testing your hypothesis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's not true .
A lack of correlation MUST mean that there is no direct causal relation between the two things you are studying .
Otherwise , there would be some correlation .
If there is indeed a causal relation , but your experimental data shows no correlation , it means that your experiment is not testing your hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's not true.
A lack of correlation MUST mean that there is no direct causal relation between the two things you are studying.
Otherwise, there would be some correlation.
If there is indeed a causal relation, but your experimental data shows no correlation, it means that your experiment is not testing your hypothesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326492</id>
	<title>Verdict: Inconclusive</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.</p><p>It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours, they added.</p></div><p>If correlation != causation, then surely lack of correlation != lack of causation. Right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible , Deltour 's team wrote , that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up , that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend , or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours , they added.If correlation ! = causation , then surely lack of correlation ! = lack of causation .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours, they added.If correlation != causation, then surely lack of correlation != lack of causation.
Right?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326368</id>
	<title>My professional opinion...</title>
	<author>dudeeh</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a loyal slashdotter, I refuse to even hover over the link of TFA, but my absolutely non-educated guess is that although cell phones may not have been around for 30 years (if it weighs over 10 kgs, it's NOT a cell phone in my book), they studied the past 30 years to get a baseline. First 10 years or so as a baseline of how the population was doing in a pre-cellphone era, then 20 years of actual usage.</p><p>PS: for those still stuck in non-metric systems, 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a loyal slashdotter , I refuse to even hover over the link of TFA , but my absolutely non-educated guess is that although cell phones may not have been around for 30 years ( if it weighs over 10 kgs , it 's NOT a cell phone in my book ) , they studied the past 30 years to get a baseline .
First 10 years or so as a baseline of how the population was doing in a pre-cellphone era , then 20 years of actual usage.PS : for those still stuck in non-metric systems , 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a loyal slashdotter, I refuse to even hover over the link of TFA, but my absolutely non-educated guess is that although cell phones may not have been around for 30 years (if it weighs over 10 kgs, it's NOT a cell phone in my book), they studied the past 30 years to get a baseline.
First 10 years or so as a baseline of how the population was doing in a pre-cellphone era, then 20 years of actual usage.PS: for those still stuck in non-metric systems, 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327756</id>
	<title>Re:If my calculations are correct...</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1259959560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it may be significant, but it isn't significantly correlated to the increase in cell phone usage over the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it may be significant , but it is n't significantly correlated to the increase in cell phone usage over the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it may be significant, but it isn't significantly correlated to the increase in cell phone usage over the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326026</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1259952420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, till we can prove, conclusively, that there are no giant, invisible, floating space gods looking down upon us and giving cancer to the ones who step out of their place by using 'magic talkie' boxes, I'm going with using a cell phone can lead to your painful and slow death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , till we can prove , conclusively , that there are no giant , invisible , floating space gods looking down upon us and giving cancer to the ones who step out of their place by using 'magic talkie ' boxes , I 'm going with using a cell phone can lead to your painful and slow death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, till we can prove, conclusively, that there are no giant, invisible, floating space gods looking down upon us and giving cancer to the ones who step out of their place by using 'magic talkie' boxes, I'm going with using a cell phone can lead to your painful and slow death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326354</id>
	<title>Re:The rates didn't increase</title>
	<author>Memetic Rebroadcast</author>
	<datestamp>1259953800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a pure observational question here. Are more or fewer people using cell phones than in the 1980's?

If cell phone usage per capita has gone way up, shouldn't the incident rate per capita go up too?
With smoking it is very easy to track the percentage of the country that smokes and then later the lung cancer rate, this data doesn't remotely match that trend in any traceable way.

I cannot prove one way or the other what happened to your step-father and it is still a tragedy, but this data would make it difficult to show a link.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a pure observational question here .
Are more or fewer people using cell phones than in the 1980 's ?
If cell phone usage per capita has gone way up , should n't the incident rate per capita go up too ?
With smoking it is very easy to track the percentage of the country that smokes and then later the lung cancer rate , this data does n't remotely match that trend in any traceable way .
I can not prove one way or the other what happened to your step-father and it is still a tragedy , but this data would make it difficult to show a link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a pure observational question here.
Are more or fewer people using cell phones than in the 1980's?
If cell phone usage per capita has gone way up, shouldn't the incident rate per capita go up too?
With smoking it is very easy to track the percentage of the country that smokes and then later the lung cancer rate, this data doesn't remotely match that trend in any traceable way.
I cannot prove one way or the other what happened to your step-father and it is still a tragedy, but this data would make it difficult to show a link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331396</id>
	<title>Re:Second-hand...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259934600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The health effects of second-hand cellphone use vary considerably. For example, type-A drivers may have an increased risk of aneurysms when the driver in front of them is using a cellphone, particularly when stopped at a traffic light that has turned green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The health effects of second-hand cellphone use vary considerably .
For example , type-A drivers may have an increased risk of aneurysms when the driver in front of them is using a cellphone , particularly when stopped at a traffic light that has turned green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The health effects of second-hand cellphone use vary considerably.
For example, type-A drivers may have an increased risk of aneurysms when the driver in front of them is using a cellphone, particularly when stopped at a traffic light that has turned green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334944</id>
	<title>Re:If my calculations are correct...</title>
	<author>hawkfish</author>
	<datestamp>1260028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in a 29 year period rates have gone up:</p><p>14.5\% for males.<br>5.8\% for females.</p><p>And this isn't significant how? I'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.</p></div><p>I noticed this too, but then I wondered if it was just better diagnosis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a 29 year period rates have gone up : 14.5 \ % for males.5.8 \ % for females.And this is n't significant how ?
I 'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.I noticed this too , but then I wondered if it was just better diagnosis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a 29 year period rates have gone up:14.5\% for males.5.8\% for females.And this isn't significant how?
I'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.I noticed this too, but then I wondered if it was just better diagnosis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332726</id>
	<title>I sometimes wonder if we assume too much...</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1259949420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The general argument that assumes RF frequencies have no impact goes something like this:<br>1: RF radiation is equivalent to X amount of heat.<br>2: X amount of heat has no significant biological impact.</p><p>I've learned to be very careful assuming what biological systems will and won't interact with.  I mentioned to my dad, a chemical engineer, that biological systems can fractionate isotopes.  Blew his mind, because he was used to thinking of isotopes as all forming equivalent bonds and being indistinguishable that way (but they behave kinetically slightly differently, and biological systems have cascades of one kinetic reaction after another).</p><p>It's part 1 of the argument that I have trouble with.  RF energy generates a rapidly shifting electric field, which torques polar molecules around.  This motion gets thermalized extremely quickly, but that's not quite the same as being thermal energy.  I sometimes wonder if we're mentally papering-over some similar sort of subtle difference in biological systems, because we're so used to it not mattering in bulk systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The general argument that assumes RF frequencies have no impact goes something like this : 1 : RF radiation is equivalent to X amount of heat.2 : X amount of heat has no significant biological impact.I 've learned to be very careful assuming what biological systems will and wo n't interact with .
I mentioned to my dad , a chemical engineer , that biological systems can fractionate isotopes .
Blew his mind , because he was used to thinking of isotopes as all forming equivalent bonds and being indistinguishable that way ( but they behave kinetically slightly differently , and biological systems have cascades of one kinetic reaction after another ) .It 's part 1 of the argument that I have trouble with .
RF energy generates a rapidly shifting electric field , which torques polar molecules around .
This motion gets thermalized extremely quickly , but that 's not quite the same as being thermal energy .
I sometimes wonder if we 're mentally papering-over some similar sort of subtle difference in biological systems , because we 're so used to it not mattering in bulk systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general argument that assumes RF frequencies have no impact goes something like this:1: RF radiation is equivalent to X amount of heat.2: X amount of heat has no significant biological impact.I've learned to be very careful assuming what biological systems will and won't interact with.
I mentioned to my dad, a chemical engineer, that biological systems can fractionate isotopes.
Blew his mind, because he was used to thinking of isotopes as all forming equivalent bonds and being indistinguishable that way (but they behave kinetically slightly differently, and biological systems have cascades of one kinetic reaction after another).It's part 1 of the argument that I have trouble with.
RF energy generates a rapidly shifting electric field, which torques polar molecules around.
This motion gets thermalized extremely quickly, but that's not quite the same as being thermal energy.
I sometimes wonder if we're mentally papering-over some similar sort of subtle difference in biological systems, because we're so used to it not mattering in bulk systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328138</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>PvtVoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

You have it ass-backwards. Correlation does not imply causation (as in the pirates and global warming), but a <i>lack</i> of correlation does provide evidence for a <i>lack</i> of causation, even in the presence of uncontrolled variables. This is because causation <i>does</i> imply correlation. If two things are statisically uncorrelated, it is very difficult to argue that they have a causal relationship, since any uncontrolled variables would have to conspire to mask what would otherwise be a real correlation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003 .
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer , but these other factors counteract it .
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables .
Otherwise , it 's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other .
You have it ass-backwards .
Correlation does not imply causation ( as in the pirates and global warming ) , but a lack of correlation does provide evidence for a lack of causation , even in the presence of uncontrolled variables .
This is because causation does imply correlation .
If two things are statisically uncorrelated , it is very difficult to argue that they have a causal relationship , since any uncontrolled variables would have to conspire to mask what would otherwise be a real correlation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003.
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.
Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
You have it ass-backwards.
Correlation does not imply causation (as in the pirates and global warming), but a lack of correlation does provide evidence for a lack of causation, even in the presence of uncontrolled variables.
This is because causation does imply correlation.
If two things are statisically uncorrelated, it is very difficult to argue that they have a causal relationship, since any uncontrolled variables would have to conspire to mask what would otherwise be a real correlation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327584</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases</i></p><p>Hello, cell phones have not been around for 30 years. So even though this is a "30 year study", cell phones have only been in mass use around 15 years or so, and may not have been heavily used at first either. So the cancer causing potential of cell phones may not be showing up just yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer casesHello , cell phones have not been around for 30 years .
So even though this is a " 30 year study " , cell phones have only been in mass use around 15 years or so , and may not have been heavily used at first either .
So the cancer causing potential of cell phones may not be showing up just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer casesHello, cell phones have not been around for 30 years.
So even though this is a "30 year study", cell phones have only been in mass use around 15 years or so, and may not have been heavily used at first either.
So the cancer causing potential of cell phones may not be showing up just yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</id>
	<title>But they do increase..</title>
	<author>Reikk</author>
	<datestamp>1259951160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by \%100</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by \ % 100</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by \%100</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330456</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1259928360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones?</p> </div><p>No, but I would be more inclined to use a wired earpiece, to keep the radio emitter further away from my precious gray matter. Inverse square of the distance and all that...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?</p></div><p>No, but I do wear a seatbelt, and my car has an airbag. The world is not binary.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... witnessed by the fact that 95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.</p></div><p>And there aren't very many 20-year-old smokers with cancer, emphysema, or heart disease!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if it did ?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones ?
No , but I would be more inclined to use a wired earpiece , to keep the radio emitter further away from my precious gray matter .
Inverse square of the distance and all that... ... the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime , you 'll have an automobile accident .
It might even be fatal .
Are you going to stop driving ? No , but I do wear a seatbelt , and my car has an airbag .
The world is not binary .
... witnessed by the fact that 95 \ % of our population is n't walking around with brain cancer.And there are n't very many 20-year-old smokers with cancer , emphysema , or heart disease !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if it did?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones?
No, but I would be more inclined to use a wired earpiece, to keep the radio emitter further away from my precious gray matter.
Inverse square of the distance and all that... ... the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident.
It might even be fatal.
Are you going to stop driving?No, but I do wear a seatbelt, and my car has an airbag.
The world is not binary.
... witnessed by the fact that 95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.And there aren't very many 20-year-old smokers with cancer, emphysema, or heart disease!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326216</id>
	<title>Re:Same thing as the wifi scare...</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1259953260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, both Limbaugh and Fox News succeed because so few other outlets in the media discuss news from a non-liberal viewpoint.  Maybe they are targeting the 50th percentile, maybe not, but Daily Show/Colbert Report are probably targeting the same range (just more leftward/younger/funnier).  This is why Dennis Miller can't keep a show on mainstream TV, because he targets the 90th percentile.</p><p>On the other hand, the Fox News <i>website</i> panders to the 25th percentile.  I swear, half the stuff on there these days is NSFW, and while I like looking at bewbs, I don't like looking at bewbs accidentally from work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , both Limbaugh and Fox News succeed because so few other outlets in the media discuss news from a non-liberal viewpoint .
Maybe they are targeting the 50th percentile , maybe not , but Daily Show/Colbert Report are probably targeting the same range ( just more leftward/younger/funnier ) .
This is why Dennis Miller ca n't keep a show on mainstream TV , because he targets the 90th percentile.On the other hand , the Fox News website panders to the 25th percentile .
I swear , half the stuff on there these days is NSFW , and while I like looking at bewbs , I do n't like looking at bewbs accidentally from work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, both Limbaugh and Fox News succeed because so few other outlets in the media discuss news from a non-liberal viewpoint.
Maybe they are targeting the 50th percentile, maybe not, but Daily Show/Colbert Report are probably targeting the same range (just more leftward/younger/funnier).
This is why Dennis Miller can't keep a show on mainstream TV, because he targets the 90th percentile.On the other hand, the Fox News website panders to the 25th percentile.
I swear, half the stuff on there these days is NSFW, and while I like looking at bewbs, I don't like looking at bewbs accidentally from work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327100</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259956560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?"</p><p>The difference is that now people who get brain cancer won't have someone to blame.  In our modern culture and legal system, there simply is no such thing as "shit happens".  If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault.  There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate".  It's like the tragedy of the commons in reverse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So what if it did ?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones ?
I suspect it 's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime , you 'll have an automobile accident .
It might even be fatal .
Are you going to stop driving ?
" The difference is that now people who get brain cancer wo n't have someone to blame .
In our modern culture and legal system , there simply is no such thing as " shit happens " .
If something bad happens , it is ALWAYS someone 's fault .
There is no room for what were once called " accidents " , " acts of God " , or " fate " .
It 's like the tragedy of the commons in reverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So what if it did?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones?
I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident.
It might even be fatal.
Are you going to stop driving?
"The difference is that now people who get brain cancer won't have someone to blame.
In our modern culture and legal system, there simply is no such thing as "shit happens".
If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault.
There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate".
It's like the tragedy of the commons in reverse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326298</id>
	<title>Re:B*S</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1259953560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,</p></div><p>OK, try to wrap your little brain around this: there is no statistically significant increase in brain cancer from 1974 (when there were no cell phones) to 2003 (when there were a shitload). If brain cancer didn't change, but cell phone usage went from 0 to "a whole bunch", the conclusion is that cell phones don't cause brain cancer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the f * k used cells 30 years ago ? !
Also , there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now , so this is pure faked corporatism support,OK , try to wrap your little brain around this : there is no statistically significant increase in brain cancer from 1974 ( when there were no cell phones ) to 2003 ( when there were a shitload ) .
If brain cancer did n't change , but cell phone usage went from 0 to " a whole bunch " , the conclusion is that cell phones do n't cause brain cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?!
Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,OK, try to wrap your little brain around this: there is no statistically significant increase in brain cancer from 1974 (when there were no cell phones) to 2003 (when there were a shitload).
If brain cancer didn't change, but cell phone usage went from 0 to "a whole bunch", the conclusion is that cell phones don't cause brain cancer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327138</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1259956740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the most likely reason: people are getting older. Once you beat most of everything else it's basically either cell regeneration failing to keep up or cell regeneration going haywire that's going to nail you. Terminal diseases like brain cancer where we don't know the cause will simply tend to get more prevalent by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the most likely reason : people are getting older .
Once you beat most of everything else it 's basically either cell regeneration failing to keep up or cell regeneration going haywire that 's going to nail you .
Terminal diseases like brain cancer where we do n't know the cause will simply tend to get more prevalent by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the most likely reason: people are getting older.
Once you beat most of everything else it's basically either cell regeneration failing to keep up or cell regeneration going haywire that's going to nail you.
Terminal diseases like brain cancer where we don't know the cause will simply tend to get more prevalent by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329316</id>
	<title>Re:But they do increase..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This appears to be an instance of <a href="http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2009/05/05/why-do-we-talk-loud-into-our-cell-phone/" title="clarksvilleonline.com" rel="nofollow">a technological problem rather than a social one</a> [clarksvilleonline.com], i.e. people talk louder because there is a problem with cellphones, not because they somehow become less civil on the phone.</p><p>Basically people talk louder on their cell phones because the devices, unlike their landline counterparts, lack feedback of your own voice back to your ear, thus making you lose awareness of the volume of your own voice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This appears to be an instance of a technological problem rather than a social one [ clarksvilleonline.com ] , i.e .
people talk louder because there is a problem with cellphones , not because they somehow become less civil on the phone.Basically people talk louder on their cell phones because the devices , unlike their landline counterparts , lack feedback of your own voice back to your ear , thus making you lose awareness of the volume of your own voice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This appears to be an instance of a technological problem rather than a social one [clarksvilleonline.com], i.e.
people talk louder because there is a problem with cellphones, not because they somehow become less civil on the phone.Basically people talk louder on their cell phones because the devices, unlike their landline counterparts, lack feedback of your own voice back to your ear, thus making you lose awareness of the volume of your own voice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326800</id>
	<title>Police RADAR</title>
	<author>KC1P</author>
	<datestamp>1259955360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously!  If they think numbers like these are a wash then please make me 14.5\% LESS likely to get cancer in the next study, since apparently they think it's all just statistical noise anyway.  Also, talking about recent upward trends in use over the whole population tells us nothing.  Smoking for ten years won't give you cancer either -- you need to follow the same people for many decades.</p><p>Anyway what about the reports of higher incidence of testicular cancer among traffic cops who use RADAR?  That's not X-rays, just plain old microwave RF.  Sure radio waves have been around for a while, but keeping the antenna close to your body while transmitting continually is a relatively new phenomenon.  Frankly I'd be surprised if they don't eventually figure out that cell phones and/or WiFi contribute to cancer, even if the effect is so low that most people wouldn't get cancer until long after they've been brought down by something else.  Bathing your body in RF just doesn't feel smart.  I'm still thinking that 80m full-wave loop antenna I hung *around* our house when I was a kid wasn't such a smart idea...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously !
If they think numbers like these are a wash then please make me 14.5 \ % LESS likely to get cancer in the next study , since apparently they think it 's all just statistical noise anyway .
Also , talking about recent upward trends in use over the whole population tells us nothing .
Smoking for ten years wo n't give you cancer either -- you need to follow the same people for many decades.Anyway what about the reports of higher incidence of testicular cancer among traffic cops who use RADAR ?
That 's not X-rays , just plain old microwave RF .
Sure radio waves have been around for a while , but keeping the antenna close to your body while transmitting continually is a relatively new phenomenon .
Frankly I 'd be surprised if they do n't eventually figure out that cell phones and/or WiFi contribute to cancer , even if the effect is so low that most people would n't get cancer until long after they 've been brought down by something else .
Bathing your body in RF just does n't feel smart .
I 'm still thinking that 80m full-wave loop antenna I hung * around * our house when I was a kid was n't such a smart idea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously!
If they think numbers like these are a wash then please make me 14.5\% LESS likely to get cancer in the next study, since apparently they think it's all just statistical noise anyway.
Also, talking about recent upward trends in use over the whole population tells us nothing.
Smoking for ten years won't give you cancer either -- you need to follow the same people for many decades.Anyway what about the reports of higher incidence of testicular cancer among traffic cops who use RADAR?
That's not X-rays, just plain old microwave RF.
Sure radio waves have been around for a while, but keeping the antenna close to your body while transmitting continually is a relatively new phenomenon.
Frankly I'd be surprised if they don't eventually figure out that cell phones and/or WiFi contribute to cancer, even if the effect is so low that most people wouldn't get cancer until long after they've been brought down by something else.
Bathing your body in RF just doesn't feel smart.
I'm still thinking that 80m full-wave loop antenna I hung *around* our house when I was a kid wasn't such a smart idea...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326302</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you saying dying in a car crash is the same as dying via brain cancer? Which would you prefer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying dying in a car crash is the same as dying via brain cancer ?
Which would you prefer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying dying in a car crash is the same as dying via brain cancer?
Which would you prefer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325858</id>
	<title>So if not brain cancer then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...What is their excuse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...What is their excuse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...What is their excuse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325974</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1259952180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correlation is not causation</p></div><p>No it isn't but, the actual quote is "correlation does not imply any specific causation". Correlation does imply (not prove, that's for math) some causation. Lack of correlation, likewise strongly implies a lack of causation. It is inductive logical refutation for the theory that cell phones increase rates of brain cancer... the scientific method at work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correlation is not causationNo it is n't but , the actual quote is " correlation does not imply any specific causation " .
Correlation does imply ( not prove , that 's for math ) some causation .
Lack of correlation , likewise strongly implies a lack of causation .
It is inductive logical refutation for the theory that cell phones increase rates of brain cancer... the scientific method at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correlation is not causationNo it isn't but, the actual quote is "correlation does not imply any specific causation".
Correlation does imply (not prove, that's for math) some causation.
Lack of correlation, likewise strongly implies a lack of causation.
It is inductive logical refutation for the theory that cell phones increase rates of brain cancer... the scientific method at work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326418</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's JUST like smoking, but the comparison brings out the hypocrisy of the subject. The general population is happy with an all out ban on smoking because of how it affects everyone's health, not just the smokers... and the "offensiveness of it all".<br> <br>A braindead suit yapping away on their cell phone is just as offensive in just about every surrounding. Also, if they did cause health concerns, people wouldn't throw the same fuss because THEY WANT their cell phone, regardless how you or I might feel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's JUST like smoking , but the comparison brings out the hypocrisy of the subject .
The general population is happy with an all out ban on smoking because of how it affects everyone 's health , not just the smokers... and the " offensiveness of it all " .
A braindead suit yapping away on their cell phone is just as offensive in just about every surrounding .
Also , if they did cause health concerns , people would n't throw the same fuss because THEY WANT their cell phone , regardless how you or I might feel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's JUST like smoking, but the comparison brings out the hypocrisy of the subject.
The general population is happy with an all out ban on smoking because of how it affects everyone's health, not just the smokers... and the "offensiveness of it all".
A braindead suit yapping away on their cell phone is just as offensive in just about every surrounding.
Also, if they did cause health concerns, people wouldn't throw the same fuss because THEY WANT their cell phone, regardless how you or I might feel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334436</id>
	<title>Re:Well, sure, in Scandanavians</title>
	<author>Slashed Dot</author>
	<datestamp>1260022860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?</p></div><p>Yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy ? Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?Yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328466</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1259919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?</em>

<br> <br>

Ya know, it's amazing you should be asking this question.  Here's a story from near me that will <a href="http://www.startribune.com/nation/78513607.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr" title="startribune.com">answer your question</a> [startribune.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine ?
Ya know , it 's amazing you should be asking this question .
Here 's a story from near me that will answer your question [ startribune.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?
Ya know, it's amazing you should be asking this question.
Here's a story from near me that will answer your question [startribune.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325998</id>
	<title>Needs "duh" tag...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1259952360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story needs the "duh" tag. Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones. If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story needs the " duh " tag .
Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones .
If RF caused cancer , we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story needs the "duh" tag.
Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones.
If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326424</id>
	<title>No STATISTICALLY Significant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>increase. Fine.</p><p>My question: Was there a non-significant increase in tumors?  In other words, what's on the other side of significance?</p><p>Yours In Moscow,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>increase .
Fine.My question : Was there a non-significant increase in tumors ?
In other words , what 's on the other side of significance ? Yours In Moscow,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>increase.
Fine.My question: Was there a non-significant increase in tumors?
In other words, what's on the other side of significance?Yours In Moscow,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328950</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1259921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If you stop using a cell phone after years of use, you won't feel physically and mentally ill. Not the same as smoking.</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/02/01/cell-phone-addiction" title="psychcentral.com">Quote</a> [psychcentral.com]: "A new Australian study finds the average Australian spends one hour on his or her mobile phone every day with one in five obsessed with their cell and potentially addicted to the device."
<br> <br>
Just the first thing I found. Fits my bias though.
<br> <br>
CC.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you stop using a cell phone after years of use , you wo n't feel physically and mentally ill. Not the same as smoking .
Quote [ psychcentral.com ] : " A new Australian study finds the average Australian spends one hour on his or her mobile phone every day with one in five obsessed with their cell and potentially addicted to the device .
" Just the first thing I found .
Fits my bias though .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you stop using a cell phone after years of use, you won't feel physically and mentally ill. Not the same as smoking.
Quote [psychcentral.com]: "A new Australian study finds the average Australian spends one hour on his or her mobile phone every day with one in five obsessed with their cell and potentially addicted to the device.
"
 
Just the first thing I found.
Fits my bias though.
CC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326786</id>
	<title>study bluetooth next</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259955300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all those middle aged chunky guys walking around in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis (and its ALWAYS middle aged chunky guys in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis), with a blinking blue light permanently affixed to their ear, have to be nuking some sort of brain tissue</p><p>a desperate ploy to feel important and in touch, but just winding up looking like a wannabe lando calrissian assistant in cloud city</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all those middle aged chunky guys walking around in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis ( and its ALWAYS middle aged chunky guys in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis ) , with a blinking blue light permanently affixed to their ear , have to be nuking some sort of brain tissuea desperate ploy to feel important and in touch , but just winding up looking like a wannabe lando calrissian assistant in cloud city</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all those middle aged chunky guys walking around in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis (and its ALWAYS middle aged chunky guys in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis), with a blinking blue light permanently affixed to their ear, have to be nuking some sort of brain tissuea desperate ploy to feel important and in touch, but just winding up looking like a wannabe lando calrissian assistant in cloud city</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331558</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259935860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AM</p></div><p>So basically, cell phones <i>may</i> increase chances of brain cancer most of the time...  unless it's 9:23am on Friday, December 4.  Then they definitely don't increase chances of brain cancer, but only during that minute!  How odd.</p><p>My calendar tells me that the next guaranteed brain-cancer-free minute of talktime occurs in 6 years - at 9:23am on Friday, December 4, 2015.  Better make it count!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell Phones Do n't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04 , @ 09 : 23AMSo basically , cell phones may increase chances of brain cancer most of the time... unless it 's 9 : 23am on Friday , December 4 .
Then they definitely do n't increase chances of brain cancer , but only during that minute !
How odd.My calendar tells me that the next guaranteed brain-cancer-free minute of talktime occurs in 6 years - at 9 : 23am on Friday , December 4 , 2015 .
Better make it count !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AMSo basically, cell phones may increase chances of brain cancer most of the time...  unless it's 9:23am on Friday, December 4.
Then they definitely don't increase chances of brain cancer, but only during that minute!
How odd.My calendar tells me that the next guaranteed brain-cancer-free minute of talktime occurs in 6 years - at 9:23am on Friday, December 4, 2015.
Better make it count!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325738</id>
	<title>And in other news....</title>
	<author>fataugie</author>
	<datestamp>1259951220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global warming is NOT happening....really.  We have the e-mails.</p><p>What next?  No Santa Clause?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global warming is NOT happening....really .
We have the e-mails.What next ?
No Santa Clause ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global warming is NOT happening....really.
We have the e-mails.What next?
No Santa Clause?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329438</id>
	<title>Re:The rates didn't increase</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The rate of brain tumors didn't increase from year to year, but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users. </i></p><p>For that to be true, not using a cell phone would have to protect against cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rate of brain tumors did n't increase from year to year , but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users .
For that to be true , not using a cell phone would have to protect against cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rate of brain tumors didn't increase from year to year, but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users.
For that to be true, not using a cell phone would have to protect against cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326704</id>
	<title>Come back later</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259954940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are useful things that can be a potential health hazard: Cars, mobile phones etc.</p><p>And then there are useless items that are known to be health hazards, like tobacco.</p><p>People worried about the former should take a break until we have banned the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are useful things that can be a potential health hazard : Cars , mobile phones etc.And then there are useless items that are known to be health hazards , like tobacco.People worried about the former should take a break until we have banned the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are useful things that can be a potential health hazard: Cars, mobile phones etc.And then there are useless items that are known to be health hazards, like tobacco.People worried about the former should take a break until we have banned the latter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326614</id>
	<title>Living causes cancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a huge problem with signal-to-noise ratio in all *** causes cancer research.</p><p>The problem is simply that a little more than 20\% of the worlds population will DIE FROM CANCER.  This is *huge*</p><p>Even exposure to a deadly dose of radiation does not appreciably increase ones chance of dieing from cancer compared with the 1/5th figure of people who will die of it anyway (Assuming they could magically be saved from dieing from radiation exposure:)</p><p>Pairing down specific cancers and specific areas of research helps somewhat but the underlying problem remains in that you need a massive (typically unrealistic) sample space to find a real signal amoungst the loud background noise to make any honest headway in the space.</p><p>This is why everything causes cancer in California and why we keep hearing conflicting reports most likely due to the starting bais of researchers who are either being dishonest/cherry picking or are not appreciative of the actual error margins in their reporting.</p><p>Now if we assume for a second there is actually a small (say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.10\%) increase of brain cancer rates for heavy cell phone use over ones lifetime it may well be worth doing something about it because globally the number of increased deaths is very real and significant -- even though for any given individual the increased risk is likely to be much less than not being vaccinated for H1N1 and then dieing as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a huge problem with signal-to-noise ratio in all * * * causes cancer research.The problem is simply that a little more than 20 \ % of the worlds population will DIE FROM CANCER .
This is * huge * Even exposure to a deadly dose of radiation does not appreciably increase ones chance of dieing from cancer compared with the 1/5th figure of people who will die of it anyway ( Assuming they could magically be saved from dieing from radiation exposure : ) Pairing down specific cancers and specific areas of research helps somewhat but the underlying problem remains in that you need a massive ( typically unrealistic ) sample space to find a real signal amoungst the loud background noise to make any honest headway in the space.This is why everything causes cancer in California and why we keep hearing conflicting reports most likely due to the starting bais of researchers who are either being dishonest/cherry picking or are not appreciative of the actual error margins in their reporting.Now if we assume for a second there is actually a small ( say .10 \ % ) increase of brain cancer rates for heavy cell phone use over ones lifetime it may well be worth doing something about it because globally the number of increased deaths is very real and significant -- even though for any given individual the increased risk is likely to be much less than not being vaccinated for H1N1 and then dieing as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a huge problem with signal-to-noise ratio in all *** causes cancer research.The problem is simply that a little more than 20\% of the worlds population will DIE FROM CANCER.
This is *huge*Even exposure to a deadly dose of radiation does not appreciably increase ones chance of dieing from cancer compared with the 1/5th figure of people who will die of it anyway (Assuming they could magically be saved from dieing from radiation exposure:)Pairing down specific cancers and specific areas of research helps somewhat but the underlying problem remains in that you need a massive (typically unrealistic) sample space to find a real signal amoungst the loud background noise to make any honest headway in the space.This is why everything causes cancer in California and why we keep hearing conflicting reports most likely due to the starting bais of researchers who are either being dishonest/cherry picking or are not appreciative of the actual error margins in their reporting.Now if we assume for a second there is actually a small (say .10\%) increase of brain cancer rates for heavy cell phone use over ones lifetime it may well be worth doing something about it because globally the number of increased deaths is very real and significant -- even though for any given individual the increased risk is likely to be much less than not being vaccinated for H1N1 and then dieing as a result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330686</id>
	<title>what?</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1259929740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. increased by 0.5 per cent per year... Overall, there was no significant pattern."</p><p>Anyone other than me also see a blatant contradiction here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; From 1974 to 2003 , the incidence rate of glioma .. increased by 0.5 per cent per year... Overall , there was no significant pattern .
" Anyone other than me also see a blatant contradiction here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma .. increased by 0.5 per cent per year... Overall, there was no significant pattern.
"Anyone other than me also see a blatant contradiction here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329778</id>
	<title>Re:My professional opinion...</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1259925360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>PS: for those still stuck in non-metric systems, 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.</p></div></blockquote><p>What the hell are these ounces you're talking about?  What is that in stone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS : for those still stuck in non-metric systems , 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.What the hell are these ounces you 're talking about ?
What is that in stone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS: for those still stuck in non-metric systems, 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.What the hell are these ounces you're talking about?
What is that in stone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327268</id>
	<title>And in other surprising news...</title>
	<author>Tator Tot</author>
	<datestamp>1259957280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pope today announced that he was Catholic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pope today announced that he was Catholic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pope today announced that he was Catholic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331158</id>
	<title>Re:Study analysed the wrong (old) tech...</title>
	<author>PipingSnail</author>
	<datestamp>1259932980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP's tech.</i>

<p>Depends on the country.<br>
In the UK, the above is completely bogus.</p><p>I know this because I was involved in two projects (for separate companies) where my job was to facilitate the migration of<br>
traffic from the analogue bands to the digital spectrum. I wrote software that would allow the radio experts to predict what<br>
would happen to traffic coverage if they increased/reduced power on specific sites, if they went from monopole to three-sector,<br>
or if they took a band from analogue and gave it to the digital network, or if they increased site resolution.

</p><p>We also did simulations to determine finer grained traffic analysis than the data provided and (in both cases) we identified<br>
coverage holes (that turned out to be real) in central London, United Kingdom.</p><p>And that was in 1994 (for the UK) and 1996 (for the rest of the world, with the primary focus the US)

</p><p>As far as the main carriers were concerned analogue was on the way out in 1994, expecting to be completely replaced a few years later.

</p><p>Its possible they kept the networks running longer than anticipated (I don't know, I did other things after this), but the<br>
idea that the analouge bands were not being migrated to digital in this time frame is totally incorrect, false and misleading.<br>
And in the UK, we've been digital for at least 10 years. We had our 3G auction in 2001.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP 's tech .
Depends on the country .
In the UK , the above is completely bogus.I know this because I was involved in two projects ( for separate companies ) where my job was to facilitate the migration of traffic from the analogue bands to the digital spectrum .
I wrote software that would allow the radio experts to predict what would happen to traffic coverage if they increased/reduced power on specific sites , if they went from monopole to three-sector , or if they took a band from analogue and gave it to the digital network , or if they increased site resolution .
We also did simulations to determine finer grained traffic analysis than the data provided and ( in both cases ) we identified coverage holes ( that turned out to be real ) in central London , United Kingdom.And that was in 1994 ( for the UK ) and 1996 ( for the rest of the world , with the primary focus the US ) As far as the main carriers were concerned analogue was on the way out in 1994 , expecting to be completely replaced a few years later .
Its possible they kept the networks running longer than anticipated ( I do n't know , I did other things after this ) , but the idea that the analouge bands were not being migrated to digital in this time frame is totally incorrect , false and misleading .
And in the UK , we 've been digital for at least 10 years .
We had our 3G auction in 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP's tech.
Depends on the country.
In the UK, the above is completely bogus.I know this because I was involved in two projects (for separate companies) where my job was to facilitate the migration of
traffic from the analogue bands to the digital spectrum.
I wrote software that would allow the radio experts to predict what
would happen to traffic coverage if they increased/reduced power on specific sites, if they went from monopole to three-sector,
or if they took a band from analogue and gave it to the digital network, or if they increased site resolution.
We also did simulations to determine finer grained traffic analysis than the data provided and (in both cases) we identified
coverage holes (that turned out to be real) in central London, United Kingdom.And that was in 1994 (for the UK) and 1996 (for the rest of the world, with the primary focus the US)

As far as the main carriers were concerned analogue was on the way out in 1994, expecting to be completely replaced a few years later.
Its possible they kept the networks running longer than anticipated (I don't know, I did other things after this), but the
idea that the analouge bands were not being migrated to digital in this time frame is totally incorrect, false and misleading.
And in the UK, we've been digital for at least 10 years.
We had our 3G auction in 2001.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326198</id>
	<title>Bad Title</title>
	<author>Psychotic\_Wrath</author>
	<datestamp>1259953140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The title says<p><div class="quote"><p>Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AM</p> </div><p>That isn't a very good title. The article doesn't state that scell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer. It just says there is no scientific link. These are two very different things.
</p><div><p>
A scientific journal artical would be very unlikely to state that cell phones don't increase the chances of brain cancer. It would be more likely to say something like.. It was determined with reasonable probability that there is no link between cell phone usage and glioma and meningioma.
</p><div><p>
Credible scientific articles don't often , if ever, come right out and say they have proven anything. When other sources get ahold of it, they make the jump from "we have determined with reasonable probability" to Science has prooven!</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title saysCell Phones Do n't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04 , @ 09 : 23AM That is n't a very good title .
The article does n't state that scell phones do n't increase chances of brain cancer .
It just says there is no scientific link .
These are two very different things .
A scientific journal artical would be very unlikely to state that cell phones do n't increase the chances of brain cancer .
It would be more likely to say something like.. It was determined with reasonable probability that there is no link between cell phone usage and glioma and meningioma .
Credible scientific articles do n't often , if ever , come right out and say they have proven anything .
When other sources get ahold of it , they make the jump from " we have determined with reasonable probability " to Science has prooven !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title saysCell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AM That isn't a very good title.
The article doesn't state that scell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer.
It just says there is no scientific link.
These are two very different things.
A scientific journal artical would be very unlikely to state that cell phones don't increase the chances of brain cancer.
It would be more likely to say something like.. It was determined with reasonable probability that there is no link between cell phone usage and glioma and meningioma.
Credible scientific articles don't often , if ever, come right out and say they have proven anything.
When other sources get ahold of it, they make the jump from "we have determined with reasonable probability" to Science has prooven!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334852</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>DonLab</author>
	<datestamp>1260028140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of one's gut reaction to claims of a cell phone / cancer connection, I think the author of this news article overstated its significance. This wasn't simply a "30-year study of 16 million subjects." It was a statistical analysis - not a clinical experiment - that looked for overarching population-wide anomalies during a six-year span ending in 2003.

Couple of issues with that: First, post hoc analysis are by their nature presumptively suspect.  Hindsight bias is always 20-20.  Also, a study like this lacks the granularity and specificity to be definitive.  Were there, for example, differences in cancer-rate trends between heavy phone users and non-users? Finally, one needs to question the study authors' key assumption that "any cancers that would arise would surely have appeared within 5-10 years after widespread cell use began."  The effects of ionizing radiation can take decades to produce clinical results.  If RF is indeed a danger, one can't simply assume that this lower-energy form of radiation would not take at least as long to produce harm.  That reasoning threatens to be circular.

Now I take no position one way or the other on the phone/cancer debate, and I see this study as valuable if viewed in perspective.  A statistical analysis of national populations certainly does have evidentiary value.  But these results are merely one piece of cumulative data, and certainly not as probative as a well-conducted clinical study of a much smaller population.  In science, bigger isn't always enough to mean better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of one 's gut reaction to claims of a cell phone / cancer connection , I think the author of this news article overstated its significance .
This was n't simply a " 30-year study of 16 million subjects .
" It was a statistical analysis - not a clinical experiment - that looked for overarching population-wide anomalies during a six-year span ending in 2003 .
Couple of issues with that : First , post hoc analysis are by their nature presumptively suspect .
Hindsight bias is always 20-20 .
Also , a study like this lacks the granularity and specificity to be definitive .
Were there , for example , differences in cancer-rate trends between heavy phone users and non-users ?
Finally , one needs to question the study authors ' key assumption that " any cancers that would arise would surely have appeared within 5-10 years after widespread cell use began .
" The effects of ionizing radiation can take decades to produce clinical results .
If RF is indeed a danger , one ca n't simply assume that this lower-energy form of radiation would not take at least as long to produce harm .
That reasoning threatens to be circular .
Now I take no position one way or the other on the phone/cancer debate , and I see this study as valuable if viewed in perspective .
A statistical analysis of national populations certainly does have evidentiary value .
But these results are merely one piece of cumulative data , and certainly not as probative as a well-conducted clinical study of a much smaller population .
In science , bigger is n't always enough to mean better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of one's gut reaction to claims of a cell phone / cancer connection, I think the author of this news article overstated its significance.
This wasn't simply a "30-year study of 16 million subjects.
" It was a statistical analysis - not a clinical experiment - that looked for overarching population-wide anomalies during a six-year span ending in 2003.
Couple of issues with that: First, post hoc analysis are by their nature presumptively suspect.
Hindsight bias is always 20-20.
Also, a study like this lacks the granularity and specificity to be definitive.
Were there, for example, differences in cancer-rate trends between heavy phone users and non-users?
Finally, one needs to question the study authors' key assumption that "any cancers that would arise would surely have appeared within 5-10 years after widespread cell use began.
"  The effects of ionizing radiation can take decades to produce clinical results.
If RF is indeed a danger, one can't simply assume that this lower-energy form of radiation would not take at least as long to produce harm.
That reasoning threatens to be circular.
Now I take no position one way or the other on the phone/cancer debate, and I see this study as valuable if viewed in perspective.
A statistical analysis of national populations certainly does have evidentiary value.
But these results are merely one piece of cumulative data, and certainly not as probative as a well-conducted clinical study of a much smaller population.
In science, bigger isn't always enough to mean better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470</id>
	<title>Study analysed the wrong (old) tech...</title>
	<author>FirstOne</author>
	<datestamp>1259958240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an outdated study.</p><p>The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP's tech.</p><p>Modern CDMA, GSM tech is of W2K vintage.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Same goes for higher frequencies being used, now 1.6 to 2.2Ghz..<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Likewise for portable phones.. 1.7/46/49Mhz.. 900Mhz, newer 2.4Ghz, 5.4Ghz.</p><p>Each step up in frequency increases the dV across brain tissue by a cubed function.<br>I.E. More energy absorbed in a smaller volume(HALF WAVELENGTH).</p><p>Cell phones also adjust their output power based on received signal strength.<br>Longer wave AMP's frequencies had a lot more penetrating power/reduced absorption which reduces transmission power.  The converse is true for higher frequencies and absorption.</p><p>Modern cell phones reduced form factor has also increased exposure.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Smaller/tiny radiating surface centered around ear, verses old bag phones with separate phone style handsets.</p><p>Likewise, per minute costs have dropped, thus increasing usage and individual exposure several fold.</p><p>Then there is nature of organically catalyzed reactions where tiny amounts of energy are used to shift reaction equilibrium's. Even small delta V potentials can affect outcomes..</p><p>Lot's of huge issues not addressed by this outdated/invalid study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an outdated study.The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP 's tech.Modern CDMA , GSM tech is of W2K vintage .
      Same goes for higher frequencies being used , now 1.6 to 2.2Ghz. .       Likewise for portable phones.. 1.7/46/49Mhz.. 900Mhz , newer 2.4Ghz , 5.4Ghz.Each step up in frequency increases the dV across brain tissue by a cubed function.I.E .
More energy absorbed in a smaller volume ( HALF WAVELENGTH ) .Cell phones also adjust their output power based on received signal strength.Longer wave AMP 's frequencies had a lot more penetrating power/reduced absorption which reduces transmission power .
The converse is true for higher frequencies and absorption.Modern cell phones reduced form factor has also increased exposure .
      Smaller/tiny radiating surface centered around ear , verses old bag phones with separate phone style handsets.Likewise , per minute costs have dropped , thus increasing usage and individual exposure several fold.Then there is nature of organically catalyzed reactions where tiny amounts of energy are used to shift reaction equilibrium 's .
Even small delta V potentials can affect outcomes..Lot 's of huge issues not addressed by this outdated/invalid study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an outdated study.The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP's tech.Modern CDMA, GSM tech is of W2K vintage.
      Same goes for higher frequencies being used, now 1.6 to 2.2Ghz..
      Likewise for portable phones.. 1.7/46/49Mhz.. 900Mhz, newer 2.4Ghz, 5.4Ghz.Each step up in frequency increases the dV across brain tissue by a cubed function.I.E.
More energy absorbed in a smaller volume(HALF WAVELENGTH).Cell phones also adjust their output power based on received signal strength.Longer wave AMP's frequencies had a lot more penetrating power/reduced absorption which reduces transmission power.
The converse is true for higher frequencies and absorption.Modern cell phones reduced form factor has also increased exposure.
      Smaller/tiny radiating surface centered around ear, verses old bag phones with separate phone style handsets.Likewise, per minute costs have dropped, thus increasing usage and individual exposure several fold.Then there is nature of organically catalyzed reactions where tiny amounts of energy are used to shift reaction equilibrium's.
Even small delta V potentials can affect outcomes..Lot's of huge issues not addressed by this outdated/invalid study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326930</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259955960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why was this modded troll?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was this modded troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was this modded troll?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327014</id>
	<title>www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259956260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp</p><p>TOC<br>15 Reasons for Concern.<br>Concern 1: Industry&rsquo;s own research showed cellphones caused brain tumors<br>Concern 2: Subsequent industry-funded research also showed that using a cellphone elevated the risk of brain tumors (2000-2002)<br>Concern 3: Interphone studies, published to date, consistently show use of a cellphone for less than 10 years protects the user from a brain tumor<br>Concern 4: Independent research shows there is risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.<br>Concern 5: Despite the systemic-protective-skewing of all results in the Interphone studies, significant risk for brain tumors from cellphone use was still found<br>Concern 6: Studies independent of industry funding show what would be expected if wireless phones cause brain tumors<br>Concern 7: The danger of brain tumors from cellphone use is highest in children, and the<br>younger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the higher the risk<br>Concern 8: There have been numerous governmental warnings about children&rsquo;s use of cellphones<br>Concern 9: Exposure limits for cellphones are based only on the danger from heating. Concern 10: An overwhelming majority of the European Parliament has voted for a set of changes based on &ldquo;health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields.&rdquo;<br>Concern 11: Cellphone radiation damages DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer.<br>(a) Paper with concern<br>(b) Industry response<br>(c) Paper with concern<br>(d) Industry response<br>(e) Paper with concern<br>Concern 12: Cellphone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier to leak. Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern<br>Concern 13: Cellphone user manuals warn customers to keep the cellphone away from the body even when the cellphone is not in use<br>Concern 14: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) warning for cordless phones<br>Concern 15: Male fertility is damaged by cellphone radiation.</p><p>-----------</p><p>Endorsements<br>We the undersigned believe it is essential that governments and the media understand the<br>independent science regarding cellphone use and brain tumors, as well as the design flaws of the 13 country Interphone study. The widespread nature of wireless telecommunication systems requires that society understand any potential risks, and that this understanding be as current as possible with the latest evidence-based science. We endorse both the message and urgency of this report.</p><p>Initial Endorsers (from 14 countries):<br>USA Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics,<br>Columbia University<br>USA David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment,<br>University at Albany<br>USA Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer<br>Institute<br>USA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy Consultant<br>USA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, University of<br>Washington<br>USA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado at<br>Colorado Springs<br>USA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, American<br>Academy of Environmental Medicine<br>USA Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New<br>York Medical College; President, The American Institute of Stress; Emeritus<br>Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society<br>USA Bert Schou, PhD, CEO, ACRES Research<br>USA Narendra P. Singh, Research Associate Professor, Department of Bioengineering,<br>University of Washington<br>USA Morton M. Teich, MD, Physician, New York, NY, Past President, American<br>Academy of Environmental Medicine<br>Australia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of<br>Neurosurgery, Australian Capital Territory<br>Australia Don Maisch, PhD (Cand.), Researcher, EMF Facts Consultancy<br>Australia Dr Charles Teo, MBBS, FRACS, Neurosurgeon, Director of The Centre for<br>Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, New South Wales.<br>Austria Gerd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.aspTOC15 Reasons for Concern.Concern 1 : Industry    s own research showed cellphones caused brain tumorsConcern 2 : Subsequent industry-funded research also showed that using a cellphone elevated the risk of brain tumors ( 2000-2002 ) Concern 3 : Interphone studies , published to date , consistently show use of a cellphone for less than 10 years protects the user from a brain tumorConcern 4 : Independent research shows there is risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.Concern 5 : Despite the systemic-protective-skewing of all results in the Interphone studies , significant risk for brain tumors from cellphone use was still foundConcern 6 : Studies independent of industry funding show what would be expected if wireless phones cause brain tumorsConcern 7 : The danger of brain tumors from cellphone use is highest in children , and theyounger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone , the higher the riskConcern 8 : There have been numerous governmental warnings about children    s use of cellphonesConcern 9 : Exposure limits for cellphones are based only on the danger from heating .
Concern 10 : An overwhelming majority of the European Parliament has voted for a set of changes based on    health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields.    Concern 11 : Cellphone radiation damages DNA , an undisputed cause of cancer .
( a ) Paper with concern ( b ) Industry response ( c ) Paper with concern ( d ) Industry response ( e ) Paper with concernConcern 12 : Cellphone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier to leak .
Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for ConcernConcern 13 : Cellphone user manuals warn customers to keep the cellphone away from the body even when the cellphone is not in useConcern 14 : Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) warning for cordless phonesConcern 15 : Male fertility is damaged by cellphone radiation.-----------EndorsementsWe the undersigned believe it is essential that governments and the media understand theindependent science regarding cellphone use and brain tumors , as well as the design flaws of the 13 country Interphone study .
The widespread nature of wireless telecommunication systems requires that society understand any potential risks , and that this understanding be as current as possible with the latest evidence-based science .
We endorse both the message and urgency of this report.Initial Endorsers ( from 14 countries ) : USA Martin Blank , PhD , Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics,Columbia UniversityUSA David O. Carpenter , MD , Director , Institute for Health and the Environment,University at AlbanyUSA Ronald B. Herberman , MD , Director Emeritus , University of Pittsburgh CancerInstituteUSA Elizabeth A. Kelley , MA , Environmental and Public Policy ConsultantUSA Henry Lai , PhD , Research Professor , Dept .
of Bioengineering , University ofWashingtonUSA Jerry L. Phillips , PhD , Director , Science Learning Center , University of Colorado atColorado SpringsUSA Lawrence A. Plumlee , MD , Editor , The Environmental Physician , AmericanAcademy of Environmental MedicineUSA Paul J. Rosch , MD , FACP , Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry , NewYork Medical College ; President , The American Institute of Stress ; EmeritusMember , The Bioelectromagnetics SocietyUSA Bert Schou , PhD , CEO , ACRES ResearchUSA Narendra P. Singh , Research Associate Professor , Department of Bioengineering,University of WashingtonUSA Morton M. Teich , MD , Physician , New York , NY , Past President , AmericanAcademy of Environmental MedicineAustralia Vini G. Khurana , MBBS , BSc ( Med ) , PhD , FRACS , Associate Professor ofNeurosurgery , Australian Capital TerritoryAustralia Don Maisch , PhD ( Cand .
) , Researcher , EMF Facts ConsultancyAustralia Dr Charles Teo , MBBS , FRACS , Neurosurgeon , Director of The Centre forMinimally Invasive Neurosurgery , New South Wales.Austria Gerd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.aspTOC15 Reasons for Concern.Concern 1: Industry’s own research showed cellphones caused brain tumorsConcern 2: Subsequent industry-funded research also showed that using a cellphone elevated the risk of brain tumors (2000-2002)Concern 3: Interphone studies, published to date, consistently show use of a cellphone for less than 10 years protects the user from a brain tumorConcern 4: Independent research shows there is risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.Concern 5: Despite the systemic-protective-skewing of all results in the Interphone studies, significant risk for brain tumors from cellphone use was still foundConcern 6: Studies independent of industry funding show what would be expected if wireless phones cause brain tumorsConcern 7: The danger of brain tumors from cellphone use is highest in children, and theyounger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the higher the riskConcern 8: There have been numerous governmental warnings about children’s use of cellphonesConcern 9: Exposure limits for cellphones are based only on the danger from heating.
Concern 10: An overwhelming majority of the European Parliament has voted for a set of changes based on “health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields.”Concern 11: Cellphone radiation damages DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer.
(a) Paper with concern(b) Industry response(c) Paper with concern(d) Industry response(e) Paper with concernConcern 12: Cellphone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier to leak.
Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for ConcernConcern 13: Cellphone user manuals warn customers to keep the cellphone away from the body even when the cellphone is not in useConcern 14: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) warning for cordless phonesConcern 15: Male fertility is damaged by cellphone radiation.-----------EndorsementsWe the undersigned believe it is essential that governments and the media understand theindependent science regarding cellphone use and brain tumors, as well as the design flaws of the 13 country Interphone study.
The widespread nature of wireless telecommunication systems requires that society understand any potential risks, and that this understanding be as current as possible with the latest evidence-based science.
We endorse both the message and urgency of this report.Initial Endorsers (from 14 countries):USA Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics,Columbia UniversityUSA David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment,University at AlbanyUSA Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh CancerInstituteUSA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy ConsultantUSA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept.
of Bioengineering, University ofWashingtonUSA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado atColorado SpringsUSA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, AmericanAcademy of Environmental MedicineUSA Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, NewYork Medical College; President, The American Institute of Stress; EmeritusMember, The Bioelectromagnetics SocietyUSA Bert Schou, PhD, CEO, ACRES ResearchUSA Narendra P. Singh, Research Associate Professor, Department of Bioengineering,University of WashingtonUSA Morton M. Teich, MD, Physician, New York, NY, Past President, AmericanAcademy of Environmental MedicineAustralia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor ofNeurosurgery, Australian Capital TerritoryAustralia Don Maisch, PhD (Cand.
), Researcher, EMF Facts ConsultancyAustralia Dr Charles Teo, MBBS, FRACS, Neurosurgeon, Director of The Centre forMinimally Invasive Neurosurgery, New South Wales.Austria Gerd</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036</id>
	<title>The rates didn't increase</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rate of brain tumors didn't increase from year to year, but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users. Especially now, that everyone uses a cell phone. My step-father was an early adopter and had his first cell phone in the 1980s. It was freaking huge. He continued to use cell phones until he died of brain cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rate of brain tumors did n't increase from year to year , but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users .
Especially now , that everyone uses a cell phone .
My step-father was an early adopter and had his first cell phone in the 1980s .
It was freaking huge .
He continued to use cell phones until he died of brain cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rate of brain tumors didn't increase from year to year, but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users.
Especially now, that everyone uses a cell phone.
My step-father was an early adopter and had his first cell phone in the 1980s.
It was freaking huge.
He continued to use cell phones until he died of brain cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328216</id>
	<title>Re:But they do increase..</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not universally; some people actually know how sensitive many modern cellphones are in picking up voice of their user. And that talking loudly is a pointless automatic response to when <i>you</i> can't hear the person at the other end (too bad cellphones, AFAIK, don't feed the voice picked from microphone into speaker...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;/ )</p><p>Which sometimes ends up funny in some way; I remember one situation when I answered a call...well, not in a restaurant but in a spaghetti bar (still nice place though). I was easily able to have a conversation while practically whispering.</p><p>A girl opposite to me was almost disturbed by the uncanny sight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not universally ; some people actually know how sensitive many modern cellphones are in picking up voice of their user .
And that talking loudly is a pointless automatic response to when you ca n't hear the person at the other end ( too bad cellphones , AFAIK , do n't feed the voice picked from microphone into speaker... ; / ) Which sometimes ends up funny in some way ; I remember one situation when I answered a call...well , not in a restaurant but in a spaghetti bar ( still nice place though ) .
I was easily able to have a conversation while practically whispering.A girl opposite to me was almost disturbed by the uncanny sight ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not universally; some people actually know how sensitive many modern cellphones are in picking up voice of their user.
And that talking loudly is a pointless automatic response to when you can't hear the person at the other end (too bad cellphones, AFAIK, don't feed the voice picked from microphone into speaker... ;/ )Which sometimes ends up funny in some way; I remember one situation when I answered a call...well, not in a restaurant but in a spaghetti bar (still nice place though).
I was easily able to have a conversation while practically whispering.A girl opposite to me was almost disturbed by the uncanny sight ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326456</id>
	<title>Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple explanation of why doctors have were completely unsurprised that radio waves don't cause cancer:</p><p>Radiation causes cancer when it messes up your DNA.  In order to do that, it has to be able to knock single electrons off of the DNA; if DNA gets hit by radiation that doesn't knock an electron off, it'll just move a little, that's it.  Radio waves are between a foot long and a kilometer long, there's no way they can hit a single electron.  So they can't damage DNA, so they can't cause cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple explanation of why doctors have were completely unsurprised that radio waves do n't cause cancer : Radiation causes cancer when it messes up your DNA .
In order to do that , it has to be able to knock single electrons off of the DNA ; if DNA gets hit by radiation that does n't knock an electron off , it 'll just move a little , that 's it .
Radio waves are between a foot long and a kilometer long , there 's no way they can hit a single electron .
So they ca n't damage DNA , so they ca n't cause cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple explanation of why doctors have were completely unsurprised that radio waves don't cause cancer:Radiation causes cancer when it messes up your DNA.
In order to do that, it has to be able to knock single electrons off of the DNA; if DNA gets hit by radiation that doesn't knock an electron off, it'll just move a little, that's it.
Radio waves are between a foot long and a kilometer long, there's no way they can hit a single electron.
So they can't damage DNA, so they can't cause cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327420</id>
	<title>Non-ionizing != no genetic damage</title>
	<author>dlenmn</author>
	<datestamp>1259958060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in theory, non-ionizing radiation can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz\_radiation#Safety" title="wikipedia.org">cause genetic damage</a> [wikipedia.org] (possibly leading to cancer). This would be if the frequency of the radiation were resonant with the DNA molecules. Only certain frequencies can do that, so it should be avoidable, but the possibility should not be ignored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in theory , non-ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage [ wikipedia.org ] ( possibly leading to cancer ) .
This would be if the frequency of the radiation were resonant with the DNA molecules .
Only certain frequencies can do that , so it should be avoidable , but the possibility should not be ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in theory, non-ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage [wikipedia.org] (possibly leading to cancer).
This would be if the frequency of the radiation were resonant with the DNA molecules.
Only certain frequencies can do that, so it should be avoidable, but the possibility should not be ignored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330774</id>
	<title>Re:Second-hand...</title>
	<author>monktus</author>
	<datestamp>1259930340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, just like how second hand smoke leads to second hand coolness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , just like how second hand smoke leads to second hand coolness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, just like how second hand smoke leads to second hand coolness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329202</id>
	<title>Death by other causes ...</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1259922600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>masks what would otherwise be a significant increase.</p><p>The cellphone users who died as a result of car accidents almost eliminated the entire population who would have been diagnosed as brain dead.</p><p>OH Wait! you said brain cancer - never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>masks what would otherwise be a significant increase.The cellphone users who died as a result of car accidents almost eliminated the entire population who would have been diagnosed as brain dead.OH Wait !
you said brain cancer - never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>masks what would otherwise be a significant increase.The cellphone users who died as a result of car accidents almost eliminated the entire population who would have been diagnosed as brain dead.OH Wait!
you said brain cancer - never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327580</id>
	<title>How about testicular cancer?</title>
	<author>adenied</author>
	<datestamp>1259958720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if there's any ongoing studies associating or not, as the case may be, having a cell phone in your pants pocket with testicular cancer.  Or issues with sperm.  Chances are there aren't any correlations, but I do sometimes feel a bit uneasy having an RF emitter a few inches from the boys pretty much every waking hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if there 's any ongoing studies associating or not , as the case may be , having a cell phone in your pants pocket with testicular cancer .
Or issues with sperm .
Chances are there are n't any correlations , but I do sometimes feel a bit uneasy having an RF emitter a few inches from the boys pretty much every waking hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if there's any ongoing studies associating or not, as the case may be, having a cell phone in your pants pocket with testicular cancer.
Or issues with sperm.
Chances are there aren't any correlations, but I do sometimes feel a bit uneasy having an RF emitter a few inches from the boys pretty much every waking hour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328158</id>
	<title>Oh no</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1259918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it can't cause cancer doesn't that mean it also can't give me wicked super powers? You know, like how gamma radiation will either kill you or make you incredible strong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it ca n't cause cancer does n't that mean it also ca n't give me wicked super powers ?
You know , like how gamma radiation will either kill you or make you incredible strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it can't cause cancer doesn't that mean it also can't give me wicked super powers?
You know, like how gamma radiation will either kill you or make you incredible strong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328068</id>
	<title>Re:Second-hand...</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1259917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, but what about second-hand cell phone usage?</p></div><p>Welll.... you see, it's kinda like second hand bacon usage. Bacon has been shown to cause cancer. Yet bacon causes far less cancer when the pig is using it then, lets say, when you and I use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but what about second-hand cell phone usage ? Welll.... you see , it 's kinda like second hand bacon usage .
Bacon has been shown to cause cancer .
Yet bacon causes far less cancer when the pig is using it then , lets say , when you and I use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but what about second-hand cell phone usage?Welll.... you see, it's kinda like second hand bacon usage.
Bacon has been shown to cause cancer.
Yet bacon causes far less cancer when the pig is using it then, lets say, when you and I use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328382</id>
	<title>Re:B*S</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Errr No....</p><p>If we have the argument 'cell phone towers cause brain cancer over a period of prolonged exposure' the starting date of 1974 to 2003 seems like it would classify as a 'long time'.  The problem is that the number of cellphone towers didn't increase significantly until about 10 years ago.  So statistically speaking while yes brain tumor rates have not increased meaningfully between the two dates the conditions in which the study where conducted are not conducive to the environment we currently are in.  Therefore FUD should still be prevalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Errr No....If we have the argument 'cell phone towers cause brain cancer over a period of prolonged exposure ' the starting date of 1974 to 2003 seems like it would classify as a 'long time' .
The problem is that the number of cellphone towers did n't increase significantly until about 10 years ago .
So statistically speaking while yes brain tumor rates have not increased meaningfully between the two dates the conditions in which the study where conducted are not conducive to the environment we currently are in .
Therefore FUD should still be prevalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errr No....If we have the argument 'cell phone towers cause brain cancer over a period of prolonged exposure' the starting date of 1974 to 2003 seems like it would classify as a 'long time'.
The problem is that the number of cellphone towers didn't increase significantly until about 10 years ago.
So statistically speaking while yes brain tumor rates have not increased meaningfully between the two dates the conditions in which the study where conducted are not conducive to the environment we currently are in.
Therefore FUD should still be prevalent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329394</id>
	<title>Re:If my calculations are correct...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259923500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they absolute numbers, or incidences of cancer per <i>n</i> people? If it's absolute numbers, then population growth explains it. If not, then their assumptions are way off base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they absolute numbers , or incidences of cancer per n people ?
If it 's absolute numbers , then population growth explains it .
If not , then their assumptions are way off base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they absolute numbers, or incidences of cancer per n people?
If it's absolute numbers, then population growth explains it.
If not, then their assumptions are way off base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326236</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>joeflies</author>
	<datestamp>1259953380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that the point is that people want to know the facts so they can make their own decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the point is that people want to know the facts so they can make their own decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the point is that people want to know the facts so they can make their own decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325962</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259952120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do the fellas in Somalia factor into your non sequitur?</p><p>Given that there is no causal mechanism suggested by physics or medicine, the lack of correlation can at least be taken as a suggestion that there is little need to look deeply into the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do the fellas in Somalia factor into your non sequitur ? Given that there is no causal mechanism suggested by physics or medicine , the lack of correlation can at least be taken as a suggestion that there is little need to look deeply into the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do the fellas in Somalia factor into your non sequitur?Given that there is no causal mechanism suggested by physics or medicine, the lack of correlation can at least be taken as a suggestion that there is little need to look deeply into the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326584</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps you overestimate...</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259954580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nicely said.  I once read about an interview with Steve Jobs, at around the time that the started the NeXT Computer Company, and I was impressed when he said something similar to your comment.  I found the quote in WikiQuotes:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."</p></div><p>And like him, I agree: that's a far more depressing thought than a mere conspiracy.  It means that, as you say, there is no <i>they</i>; <i>we</i> are building the world as we want it; by inertia and laziness, not by force.  That people--<i>us</i>--are actually that dispassionate and lethargy <i>by our own nature</i>.  To me, it is important to recognize this.  Only then can we truly see what we are doing, and perhaps steer away from that course.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nicely said .
I once read about an interview with Steve Jobs , at around the time that the started the NeXT Computer Company , and I was impressed when he said something similar to your comment .
I found the quote in WikiQuotes : " When you 're young , you look at television and think , There 's a conspiracy .
The networks have conspired to dumb us down .
But when you get a little older , you realize that 's not true .
The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want .
That 's a far more depressing thought .
Conspiracy is optimistic !
You can shoot the bastards !
We can have a revolution !
But the networks are really in business to give people what they want .
It 's the truth .
" And like him , I agree : that 's a far more depressing thought than a mere conspiracy .
It means that , as you say , there is no they ; we are building the world as we want it ; by inertia and laziness , not by force .
That people--us--are actually that dispassionate and lethargy by our own nature .
To me , it is important to recognize this .
Only then can we truly see what we are doing , and perhaps steer away from that course .
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nicely said.
I once read about an interview with Steve Jobs, at around the time that the started the NeXT Computer Company, and I was impressed when he said something similar to your comment.
I found the quote in WikiQuotes:"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy.
The networks have conspired to dumb us down.
But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true.
The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want.
That's a far more depressing thought.
Conspiracy is optimistic!
You can shoot the bastards!
We can have a revolution!
But the networks are really in business to give people what they want.
It's the truth.
"And like him, I agree: that's a far more depressing thought than a mere conspiracy.
It means that, as you say, there is no they; we are building the world as we want it; by inertia and laziness, not by force.
That people--us--are actually that dispassionate and lethargy by our own nature.
To me, it is important to recognize this.
Only then can we truly see what we are doing, and perhaps steer away from that course.
        -dZ.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331628</id>
	<title>Re:I'm more worried about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259936340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ehh, testicular cancer isn't that bad.  It's one of the most curable cancers out there - especially if you get 100\% seminoma and <b>catch it early</b>.  I had it 2 years ago, and I didn't even own a cell phone then.  Had to do radiation therapy when it came back a few months after the initial surgery, but that was not bad at all.  Way easier than chemo, from what I hear.</p><p>Of course, now I'm a lot more worried about a secondary cancer in 20-30 years from the radiation treatment, than from the cell phone I now carry in my pocket!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehh , testicular cancer is n't that bad .
It 's one of the most curable cancers out there - especially if you get 100 \ % seminoma and catch it early .
I had it 2 years ago , and I did n't even own a cell phone then .
Had to do radiation therapy when it came back a few months after the initial surgery , but that was not bad at all .
Way easier than chemo , from what I hear.Of course , now I 'm a lot more worried about a secondary cancer in 20-30 years from the radiation treatment , than from the cell phone I now carry in my pocket !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehh, testicular cancer isn't that bad.
It's one of the most curable cancers out there - especially if you get 100\% seminoma and catch it early.
I had it 2 years ago, and I didn't even own a cell phone then.
Had to do radiation therapy when it came back a few months after the initial surgery, but that was not bad at all.
Way easier than chemo, from what I hear.Of course, now I'm a lot more worried about a secondary cancer in 20-30 years from the radiation treatment, than from the cell phone I now carry in my pocket!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328710</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I'm going to get in a car crash I'd rather have an airbag in my car...</p></div><p>Even better point. We need to start putting airbags in cell phones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm going to get in a car crash I 'd rather have an airbag in my car...Even better point .
We need to start putting airbags in cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm going to get in a car crash I'd rather have an airbag in my car...Even better point.
We need to start putting airbags in cell phones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329878</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>dbateman</author>
	<datestamp>1259925780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except supratentorial gilomas being tumors that form outside the membrane of the brain are a type of tumor that is more likely to be in close proximity to the ear (rather than deeper in the brain) where the specific absorption of microwaves will be the highest.. Seems like a good type of brain tumor to base a study of the effects of mobile phones on the brain on.</p><p>D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except supratentorial gilomas being tumors that form outside the membrane of the brain are a type of tumor that is more likely to be in close proximity to the ear ( rather than deeper in the brain ) where the specific absorption of microwaves will be the highest.. Seems like a good type of brain tumor to base a study of the effects of mobile phones on the brain on.D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except supratentorial gilomas being tumors that form outside the membrane of the brain are a type of tumor that is more likely to be in close proximity to the ear (rather than deeper in the brain) where the specific absorption of microwaves will be the highest.. Seems like a good type of brain tumor to base a study of the effects of mobile phones on the brain on.D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328254</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is exactly right. The limits on W/m^2 are set based on what amount is needed to cook you and that number is then divided by a factor.</p><p>The limits are lower in residential houses than they are in workspaces in the industry or in the seating compartments of electric trains. In residential areas you are be exposed to much less than one thousandth of the energy density that would be needed to cook you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is exactly right .
The limits on W/m ^ 2 are set based on what amount is needed to cook you and that number is then divided by a factor.The limits are lower in residential houses than they are in workspaces in the industry or in the seating compartments of electric trains .
In residential areas you are be exposed to much less than one thousandth of the energy density that would be needed to cook you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is exactly right.
The limits on W/m^2 are set based on what amount is needed to cook you and that number is then divided by a factor.The limits are lower in residential houses than they are in workspaces in the industry or in the seating compartments of electric trains.
In residential areas you are be exposed to much less than one thousandth of the energy density that would be needed to cook you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326356</id>
	<title>Re:The rates didn't increase</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259953860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My sister was just fine for years. Then I bought a pet rock. After I got the pet rock, my sister was bitten by a moose. How can the government allow these things to be sold?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My sister was just fine for years .
Then I bought a pet rock .
After I got the pet rock , my sister was bitten by a moose .
How can the government allow these things to be sold ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sister was just fine for years.
Then I bought a pet rock.
After I got the pet rock, my sister was bitten by a moose.
How can the government allow these things to be sold?!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327162</id>
	<title>well they went up 0.5\% per year</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1259956800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so isn't \_something\_ causing them ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so is n't \ _something \ _ causing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so isn't \_something\_ causing them ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332638</id>
	<title>Re:Well, sure, in Scandanavians</title>
	<author>laederkeps</author>
	<datestamp>1259948160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This study shows Scandinavians don't get any increased tumors.  Don't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans won't.  Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?</p></div><p>As a scandinavian watching the U.S. from a safe distance, let me be the first to say: "Yes."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This study shows Scandinavians do n't get any increased tumors .
Do n't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans wo n't .
Have n't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy ? As a scandinavian watching the U.S. from a safe distance , let me be the first to say : " Yes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This study shows Scandinavians don't get any increased tumors.
Don't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans won't.
Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?As a scandinavian watching the U.S. from a safe distance, let me be the first to say: "Yes.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330512</id>
	<title>Re:Needs "duh" tag...</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1259928660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.</p></div><p>How long did it take to figure out that smoking caused cancer, and how long have people been holding RF emitters up to their heads for upwards of an hour a day?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If RF caused cancer , we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.How long did it take to figure out that smoking caused cancer , and how long have people been holding RF emitters up to their heads for upwards of an hour a day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.How long did it take to figure out that smoking caused cancer, and how long have people been holding RF emitters up to their heads for upwards of an hour a day?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327240</id>
	<title>I remember...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a teenager in the 1990s during the whole "cell phone brain tumor" craze, my dad had the best theory about it:</p><p>In the USA, whether or not you receive medical is based on whether or not you can afford it. Cell phones were, at the time, mainly in the hands of the affluent. The same people who could afford to be told by their doctors that they have brain tumors. So if the brain tumor rate is identical, Wal-Mart employees without health insurance will never find out they had a brain tumor--until they die.</p><p>Cell phones were useful targets because they were newfangled, RF-emitting objects, held up against your head.</p><p>Now, I used to have a job that required me to have a heavy-duty Icom two-way radio. In the instructions:</p><p>"ALWAYS keep the antenna at least 2.5 cm (1 inch) away from the<br>body when transmitting and only use the Icom belt-clips, listed in p. 22,<br>when attaching the radio to your belt, etc., to ensure FCC RF exposure<br>compliance requirements are not exceeded. To provide the<br>recipients of your transmission the best sound quality, hold the antenna<br>at least 5 cm (2 inches) from mouth, and slightly off to one<br>side."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a teenager in the 1990s during the whole " cell phone brain tumor " craze , my dad had the best theory about it : In the USA , whether or not you receive medical is based on whether or not you can afford it .
Cell phones were , at the time , mainly in the hands of the affluent .
The same people who could afford to be told by their doctors that they have brain tumors .
So if the brain tumor rate is identical , Wal-Mart employees without health insurance will never find out they had a brain tumor--until they die.Cell phones were useful targets because they were newfangled , RF-emitting objects , held up against your head.Now , I used to have a job that required me to have a heavy-duty Icom two-way radio .
In the instructions : " ALWAYS keep the antenna at least 2.5 cm ( 1 inch ) away from thebody when transmitting and only use the Icom belt-clips , listed in p. 22,when attaching the radio to your belt , etc. , to ensure FCC RF exposurecompliance requirements are not exceeded .
To provide therecipients of your transmission the best sound quality , hold the antennaat least 5 cm ( 2 inches ) from mouth , and slightly off to oneside .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a teenager in the 1990s during the whole "cell phone brain tumor" craze, my dad had the best theory about it:In the USA, whether or not you receive medical is based on whether or not you can afford it.
Cell phones were, at the time, mainly in the hands of the affluent.
The same people who could afford to be told by their doctors that they have brain tumors.
So if the brain tumor rate is identical, Wal-Mart employees without health insurance will never find out they had a brain tumor--until they die.Cell phones were useful targets because they were newfangled, RF-emitting objects, held up against your head.Now, I used to have a job that required me to have a heavy-duty Icom two-way radio.
In the instructions:"ALWAYS keep the antenna at least 2.5 cm (1 inch) away from thebody when transmitting and only use the Icom belt-clips, listed in p. 22,when attaching the radio to your belt, etc., to ensure FCC RF exposurecompliance requirements are not exceeded.
To provide therecipients of your transmission the best sound quality, hold the antennaat least 5 cm (2 inches) from mouth, and slightly off to oneside.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331074</id>
	<title>mobile phones haven't been around for 30 years</title>
	<author>PipingSnail</author>
	<datestamp>1259932200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aha! A 30 year long study of mobile phones usages shows they don't create cancer.

</p><p>Pretty interesting since mobile phones were not available in 1979. The study is Swedish, analogue mobile phone market starts in Sweden in 1981.

</p><p>A lady I know in this village, her partner is someone that has been studying mobile phones and their effects for a long time.<br>
They know people that use mobiles day in, day out, all day (literally). Typically these people are "Mr White Van Man", driving a van all<br>
day taking directions as what to do etc.

</p><p>These people they are studying have no short term memory capability, whatsoever. They are convinced it is the mobile phone usage, combined <br>
with the extreme (all the time) usage pattern these people have.

</p><p>Then there are my friends that design mobile phones - they tell me they go out of their way to choose frequencies that do not resonate<br>
with human tissue. Which runs counter to some of my other friends that have the much reported "mobile phone hot ear". It would only get<br>
hot if it were resonating with the signal and therefore attenuating the signal.

</p><p>The interesting thing is that the mobile circuit designers are genuinely interested and do not write these events off as "can't happen", or "nothing<br>
to worry about" or "scaremongering". Unlike the folks that represent the mobile phone industry (and the billions they stand to make).

</p><p>Disclaimer. I have been involved in improving GSM (and other related technology) traffic planning coverage in the UK and also for traffic planning products marketed worldwide, in particular the American cellular market.

</p><p>And no, I do not own a mobile phone. Make of that what you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aha !
A 30 year long study of mobile phones usages shows they do n't create cancer .
Pretty interesting since mobile phones were not available in 1979 .
The study is Swedish , analogue mobile phone market starts in Sweden in 1981 .
A lady I know in this village , her partner is someone that has been studying mobile phones and their effects for a long time .
They know people that use mobiles day in , day out , all day ( literally ) .
Typically these people are " Mr White Van Man " , driving a van all day taking directions as what to do etc .
These people they are studying have no short term memory capability , whatsoever .
They are convinced it is the mobile phone usage , combined with the extreme ( all the time ) usage pattern these people have .
Then there are my friends that design mobile phones - they tell me they go out of their way to choose frequencies that do not resonate with human tissue .
Which runs counter to some of my other friends that have the much reported " mobile phone hot ear " .
It would only get hot if it were resonating with the signal and therefore attenuating the signal .
The interesting thing is that the mobile circuit designers are genuinely interested and do not write these events off as " ca n't happen " , or " nothing to worry about " or " scaremongering " .
Unlike the folks that represent the mobile phone industry ( and the billions they stand to make ) .
Disclaimer. I have been involved in improving GSM ( and other related technology ) traffic planning coverage in the UK and also for traffic planning products marketed worldwide , in particular the American cellular market .
And no , I do not own a mobile phone .
Make of that what you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aha!
A 30 year long study of mobile phones usages shows they don't create cancer.
Pretty interesting since mobile phones were not available in 1979.
The study is Swedish, analogue mobile phone market starts in Sweden in 1981.
A lady I know in this village, her partner is someone that has been studying mobile phones and their effects for a long time.
They know people that use mobiles day in, day out, all day (literally).
Typically these people are "Mr White Van Man", driving a van all
day taking directions as what to do etc.
These people they are studying have no short term memory capability, whatsoever.
They are convinced it is the mobile phone usage, combined 
with the extreme (all the time) usage pattern these people have.
Then there are my friends that design mobile phones - they tell me they go out of their way to choose frequencies that do not resonate
with human tissue.
Which runs counter to some of my other friends that have the much reported "mobile phone hot ear".
It would only get
hot if it were resonating with the signal and therefore attenuating the signal.
The interesting thing is that the mobile circuit designers are genuinely interested and do not write these events off as "can't happen", or "nothing
to worry about" or "scaremongering".
Unlike the folks that represent the mobile phone industry (and the billions they stand to make).
Disclaimer. I have been involved in improving GSM (and other related technology) traffic planning coverage in the UK and also for traffic planning products marketed worldwide, in particular the American cellular market.
And no, I do not own a mobile phone.
Make of that what you will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326700</id>
	<title>That's a big increase</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1259954940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote.</p></div></blockquote><p>0.5\%/year for 29 years is 1.005^29 = 1.1556 or 15.56\% increase for men, 5.97\% for women.</p><p>That leads to a few hypotheses from me:<br>1) Men think with their cock (the cellphone is usually kept in trouser pockets)<br>2) We've gotten slowly better at finding these cancers (but why is the increase that much higher in men?)<br>3) Some other carcinogen in our environment is becoming more common, and it affects men more than women.</p><p>And no, I haven't read the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'From 1974 to 2003 , the incidence rate of glioma ( a type of brain tumor ) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women, ' they wrote.0.5 \ % /year for 29 years is 1.005 ^ 29 = 1.1556 or 15.56 \ % increase for men , 5.97 \ % for women.That leads to a few hypotheses from me : 1 ) Men think with their cock ( the cellphone is usually kept in trouser pockets ) 2 ) We 've gotten slowly better at finding these cancers ( but why is the increase that much higher in men ?
) 3 ) Some other carcinogen in our environment is becoming more common , and it affects men more than women.And no , I have n't read the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote.0.5\%/year for 29 years is 1.005^29 = 1.1556 or 15.56\% increase for men, 5.97\% for women.That leads to a few hypotheses from me:1) Men think with their cock (the cellphone is usually kept in trouser pockets)2) We've gotten slowly better at finding these cancers (but why is the increase that much higher in men?
)3) Some other carcinogen in our environment is becoming more common, and it affects men more than women.And no, I haven't read the article.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what if it did?  Would anyone really stop using cell phones?  I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident.  It might even be fatal.  Are you going to stop driving?</p><p>Everything is a risk.  It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk.  Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.</p><p>I like those odds.</p></div><p>Good point.</p><p>Here in the US, at least, folks seem pretty risk-averse.  There's always a push to make thing safer, eliminate danger, etc.  That's not necessarily a bad thing...  If I'm going to get in a car crash I'd rather have an airbag in my car...  But it isn't necessarily a good thing either, as fewer people actually get out and experience the world around them.</p><p>There is such a thing as an acceptable risk.  As you said, it's fairly certain that you'll eventually get in a car accident and maybe even die from it...  But, for most people, that's an acceptable risk.</p><p>And I think most folks, even if they knew there was an increased risk of cancer, would keep using their cell phones.</p><p>Hell, plenty of people keep smoking...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if it did ?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones ?
I suspect it 's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime , you 'll have an automobile accident .
It might even be fatal .
Are you going to stop driving ? Everything is a risk .
It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk .
Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer , it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it 's practically non-existent , witnessed by the fact that 95 \ % of our population is n't walking around with brain cancer.I like those odds.Good point.Here in the US , at least , folks seem pretty risk-averse .
There 's always a push to make thing safer , eliminate danger , etc .
That 's not necessarily a bad thing... If I 'm going to get in a car crash I 'd rather have an airbag in my car... But it is n't necessarily a good thing either , as fewer people actually get out and experience the world around them.There is such a thing as an acceptable risk .
As you said , it 's fairly certain that you 'll eventually get in a car accident and maybe even die from it... But , for most people , that 's an acceptable risk.And I think most folks , even if they knew there was an increased risk of cancer , would keep using their cell phones.Hell , plenty of people keep smoking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if it did?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones?
I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident.
It might even be fatal.
Are you going to stop driving?Everything is a risk.
It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk.
Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.I like those odds.Good point.Here in the US, at least, folks seem pretty risk-averse.
There's always a push to make thing safer, eliminate danger, etc.
That's not necessarily a bad thing...  If I'm going to get in a car crash I'd rather have an airbag in my car...  But it isn't necessarily a good thing either, as fewer people actually get out and experience the world around them.There is such a thing as an acceptable risk.
As you said, it's fairly certain that you'll eventually get in a car accident and maybe even die from it...  But, for most people, that's an acceptable risk.And I think most folks, even if they knew there was an increased risk of cancer, would keep using their cell phones.Hell, plenty of people keep smoking...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327102</id>
	<title>Cellphonebraintumor-gate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259956560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see the raw data, the statistical methodology used to come up with the conclusion and *ALL* the private email of every researcher and their friends and families.</p><p>Until I see all of that, I will consider this "research" null and void.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see the raw data , the statistical methodology used to come up with the conclusion and * ALL * the private email of every researcher and their friends and families.Until I see all of that , I will consider this " research " null and void .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see the raw data, the statistical methodology used to come up with the conclusion and *ALL* the private email of every researcher and their friends and families.Until I see all of that, I will consider this "research" null and void.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327250</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>bazmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259957220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.</i>
<br> <br>
This is an abuse of the "correlation is not causation" principle.  This study is showing the LACK of causation, not causation.
<br> <br>
Lack of correlation is strong evidence of lack of causation, even if the contrapositive isn't necessarily true.  The parent post said that looking at the lack of pirates and global warming happening would be more accurate to the topic if you said that there was a lack of pirates and a lack of, say, a lack of global warming.  Lack of correlation is also "evidence".  It *could* be that cell phones increase brain cancer AND something else is counteracting it, but we have NO reason to suspect that.  By the same reasoning, it could be that the lack of pirates is causing a rise in toe fungus... but smurfs eat it off our feet at night and are counteracting it.  However, what would make you think pirates cause toe fungus?
<br> <br>
Applying that to this situation, if there is a lack of correlation between cell phones and brain cancer, what reason would we have to suspect that there IS a correlation, but that it's being suppressed by something else?  Until we have some sort of positive evidence of this, there's no more reason to suppose that than there is to just suppose that it doesn't cause brain cancer in the first place.
<br> <br>
IOW, a HUGE rise in the frequency of cell phone use compared with hardly any rise in brain cancer is indeed good evidence that one isn't causing the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer , but these other factors counteract it .
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables .
This is an abuse of the " correlation is not causation " principle .
This study is showing the LACK of causation , not causation .
Lack of correlation is strong evidence of lack of causation , even if the contrapositive is n't necessarily true .
The parent post said that looking at the lack of pirates and global warming happening would be more accurate to the topic if you said that there was a lack of pirates and a lack of , say , a lack of global warming .
Lack of correlation is also " evidence " .
It * could * be that cell phones increase brain cancer AND something else is counteracting it , but we have NO reason to suspect that .
By the same reasoning , it could be that the lack of pirates is causing a rise in toe fungus... but smurfs eat it off our feet at night and are counteracting it .
However , what would make you think pirates cause toe fungus ?
Applying that to this situation , if there is a lack of correlation between cell phones and brain cancer , what reason would we have to suspect that there IS a correlation , but that it 's being suppressed by something else ?
Until we have some sort of positive evidence of this , there 's no more reason to suppose that than there is to just suppose that it does n't cause brain cancer in the first place .
IOW , a HUGE rise in the frequency of cell phone use compared with hardly any rise in brain cancer is indeed good evidence that one is n't causing the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.
This is an abuse of the "correlation is not causation" principle.
This study is showing the LACK of causation, not causation.
Lack of correlation is strong evidence of lack of causation, even if the contrapositive isn't necessarily true.
The parent post said that looking at the lack of pirates and global warming happening would be more accurate to the topic if you said that there was a lack of pirates and a lack of, say, a lack of global warming.
Lack of correlation is also "evidence".
It *could* be that cell phones increase brain cancer AND something else is counteracting it, but we have NO reason to suspect that.
By the same reasoning, it could be that the lack of pirates is causing a rise in toe fungus... but smurfs eat it off our feet at night and are counteracting it.
However, what would make you think pirates cause toe fungus?
Applying that to this situation, if there is a lack of correlation between cell phones and brain cancer, what reason would we have to suspect that there IS a correlation, but that it's being suppressed by something else?
Until we have some sort of positive evidence of this, there's no more reason to suppose that than there is to just suppose that it doesn't cause brain cancer in the first place.
IOW, a HUGE rise in the frequency of cell phone use compared with hardly any rise in brain cancer is indeed good evidence that one isn't causing the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328298</id>
	<title>Re:Same thing as the wifi scare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is already a thriving new media doing just this.  Take the recent climategate, the real reporters put links to the files with their stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already a thriving new media doing just this .
Take the recent climategate , the real reporters put links to the files with their stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already a thriving new media doing just this.
Take the recent climategate, the real reporters put links to the files with their stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326940</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1259955960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would anyone really stop using cell phones?</i></p><p>Many who've studied brain cancer or seen it up close would. It's one of those diseases where the sheer nastiness (of the most common variants) is so bad that no matter how small the risk, it's better to avoid it.</p><p><i>95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.</i></p><p>Mean survival time is about 11 months and chances are it'll eat important enough parts of the brain before that, so they wouldn't be walking around anyway.</p><p>Unfortunately, there are few readily apparent causes, which makes any risk hard to avoid. And I really doubt cell phone microwaves as a possible risk factor, even if some extremely roundabout causality chain could be imagined. But if there were a proven risk, I'd most likely be handing out my carrier pigeon address (or, more likely, use some other spectrum communications method).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would anyone really stop using cell phones ? Many who 've studied brain cancer or seen it up close would .
It 's one of those diseases where the sheer nastiness ( of the most common variants ) is so bad that no matter how small the risk , it 's better to avoid it.95 \ % of our population is n't walking around with brain cancer.Mean survival time is about 11 months and chances are it 'll eat important enough parts of the brain before that , so they would n't be walking around anyway.Unfortunately , there are few readily apparent causes , which makes any risk hard to avoid .
And I really doubt cell phone microwaves as a possible risk factor , even if some extremely roundabout causality chain could be imagined .
But if there were a proven risk , I 'd most likely be handing out my carrier pigeon address ( or , more likely , use some other spectrum communications method ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would anyone really stop using cell phones?Many who've studied brain cancer or seen it up close would.
It's one of those diseases where the sheer nastiness (of the most common variants) is so bad that no matter how small the risk, it's better to avoid it.95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.Mean survival time is about 11 months and chances are it'll eat important enough parts of the brain before that, so they wouldn't be walking around anyway.Unfortunately, there are few readily apparent causes, which makes any risk hard to avoid.
And I really doubt cell phone microwaves as a possible risk factor, even if some extremely roundabout causality chain could be imagined.
But if there were a proven risk, I'd most likely be handing out my carrier pigeon address (or, more likely, use some other spectrum communications method).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</id>
	<title>So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if it did?  Would anyone really stop using cell phones?  I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident.  It might even be fatal.  Are you going to stop driving?</p><p>Everything is a risk.  It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk.  Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.</p><p>I like those odds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if it did ?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones ?
I suspect it 's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime , you 'll have an automobile accident .
It might even be fatal .
Are you going to stop driving ? Everything is a risk .
It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk .
Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer , it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it 's practically non-existent , witnessed by the fact that 95 \ % of our population is n't walking around with brain cancer.I like those odds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if it did?
Would anyone really stop using cell phones?
I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident.
It might even be fatal.
Are you going to stop driving?Everything is a risk.
It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk.
Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95\% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.I like those odds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327218</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>bipbop</author>
	<datestamp>1259957100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can prove a negative.

<a href="http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html" title="bloomu.edu">http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html</a> [bloomu.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can prove a negative .
http : //departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html [ bloomu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can prove a negative.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html [bloomu.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329682</id>
	<title>The perils of following an imagined trajectory</title>
	<author>Wolfier</author>
	<datestamp>1259924880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I'm an avid mobile phone user.</p><p>So it doesn't diverge from an extrapolation.</p><p>Have they taken into account there could be a *decrease* of tumour over the years due to better health care and lifestyles (at least in part of the world).</p><p>My view as, following the existing trend cannot imply "cell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer".  Maybe it's just offset by decreases due to some other reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm an avid mobile phone user.So it does n't diverge from an extrapolation.Have they taken into account there could be a * decrease * of tumour over the years due to better health care and lifestyles ( at least in part of the world ) .My view as , following the existing trend can not imply " cell phones do n't increase chances of brain cancer " .
Maybe it 's just offset by decreases due to some other reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm an avid mobile phone user.So it doesn't diverge from an extrapolation.Have they taken into account there could be a *decrease* of tumour over the years due to better health care and lifestyles (at least in part of the world).My view as, following the existing trend cannot imply "cell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer".
Maybe it's just offset by decreases due to some other reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328328</id>
	<title>Re:B*S</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. but in fact it did change.  A 0.5\% increase is not "didn't change".  Furthermore, there are several studies which show greater numbers than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. but in fact it did change .
A 0.5 \ % increase is not " did n't change " .
Furthermore , there are several studies which show greater numbers than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. but in fact it did change.
A 0.5\% increase is not "didn't change".
Furthermore, there are several studies which show greater numbers than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327048</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1259956380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks to me like two articles that epitomize "correlation is not causation"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks to me like two articles that epitomize " correlation is not causation "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks to me like two articles that epitomize "correlation is not causation"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326360</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1259953860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously?  Are you seriously going to start this?  Cellular phones cannot, in anyways what-so-ever, cause brain cancer.  The radio waves are not capable of altering humans on a cellular(no pun intended) level, which is what would have to happen in order to cause cancer.  We had this discussion in my Genetics class last semester and our professor decided to start a class project.  In this project, we were to pour over data and find a correlation either proving or countering to stance that cellular phones are capable of causing cancer.

After 5 weeks of intense studying, it was discovered that cellular phones are not capable of causing cancer, unless a phone manufacturer decided to power a device with a nuclear power source.  Of course, then you could make the argument that cellular phones can cause cancer...except that it would be the power source and not the phone itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Are you seriously going to start this ?
Cellular phones can not , in anyways what-so-ever , cause brain cancer .
The radio waves are not capable of altering humans on a cellular ( no pun intended ) level , which is what would have to happen in order to cause cancer .
We had this discussion in my Genetics class last semester and our professor decided to start a class project .
In this project , we were to pour over data and find a correlation either proving or countering to stance that cellular phones are capable of causing cancer .
After 5 weeks of intense studying , it was discovered that cellular phones are not capable of causing cancer , unless a phone manufacturer decided to power a device with a nuclear power source .
Of course , then you could make the argument that cellular phones can cause cancer...except that it would be the power source and not the phone itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Are you seriously going to start this?
Cellular phones cannot, in anyways what-so-ever, cause brain cancer.
The radio waves are not capable of altering humans on a cellular(no pun intended) level, which is what would have to happen in order to cause cancer.
We had this discussion in my Genetics class last semester and our professor decided to start a class project.
In this project, we were to pour over data and find a correlation either proving or countering to stance that cellular phones are capable of causing cancer.
After 5 weeks of intense studying, it was discovered that cellular phones are not capable of causing cancer, unless a phone manufacturer decided to power a device with a nuclear power source.
Of course, then you could make the argument that cellular phones can cause cancer...except that it would be the power source and not the phone itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326476</id>
	<title>I'm more worried about...</title>
	<author>GhettoFabulous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>testicular cancer or mutated sperm honestly. That device spends a lot of time in close proximity to my unborn children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>testicular cancer or mutated sperm honestly .
That device spends a lot of time in close proximity to my unborn children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>testicular cancer or mutated sperm honestly.
That device spends a lot of time in close proximity to my unborn children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326042</id>
	<title>Re:Same thing as the wifi scare...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1259952540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't dumbing it down to the "stupidest" person consuming news, just the 50th percentile. This gets the largest viewer/readership which translates to more ad revenue. Just say what the 50th percentile wants to hear and you automatically have the largest market, ala Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't dumbing it down to the " stupidest " person consuming news , just the 50th percentile .
This gets the largest viewer/readership which translates to more ad revenue .
Just say what the 50th percentile wants to hear and you automatically have the largest market , ala Rush Limbaugh and Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't dumbing it down to the "stupidest" person consuming news, just the 50th percentile.
This gets the largest viewer/readership which translates to more ad revenue.
Just say what the 50th percentile wants to hear and you automatically have the largest market, ala Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326640</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a bunch of very vocal people who kinda hate everything unnatural and say everything will kill you faster, try to get laws past banning such technologies although they tend to fail most of the time sometimes these stupid laws get past.  And if they don't and it is found harmful they will go "See I told you I was right next time you will listen to me!", so the next time they will ban the next harmless material by using psutoscience so they can show how much of a better person they are from everyone else...</p><p>I would say let science do its research and come up with the correct opinion. If the danger isn't obvious or from excess I would say take the advantage and use it in moderation and allow it to improve your life, and not stay up all night worrying abut things that I don't have any knowledge on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a bunch of very vocal people who kinda hate everything unnatural and say everything will kill you faster , try to get laws past banning such technologies although they tend to fail most of the time sometimes these stupid laws get past .
And if they do n't and it is found harmful they will go " See I told you I was right next time you will listen to me !
" , so the next time they will ban the next harmless material by using psutoscience so they can show how much of a better person they are from everyone else...I would say let science do its research and come up with the correct opinion .
If the danger is n't obvious or from excess I would say take the advantage and use it in moderation and allow it to improve your life , and not stay up all night worrying abut things that I do n't have any knowledge on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a bunch of very vocal people who kinda hate everything unnatural and say everything will kill you faster, try to get laws past banning such technologies although they tend to fail most of the time sometimes these stupid laws get past.
And if they don't and it is found harmful they will go "See I told you I was right next time you will listen to me!
", so the next time they will ban the next harmless material by using psutoscience so they can show how much of a better person they are from everyone else...I would say let science do its research and come up with the correct opinion.
If the danger isn't obvious or from excess I would say take the advantage and use it in moderation and allow it to improve your life, and not stay up all night worrying abut things that I don't have any knowledge on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326066</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if i read this tired "correlation is not causation" cliche one more time i'm going to stab at my eyes with a pair of rusty forks, ffs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>if i read this tired " correlation is not causation " cliche one more time i 'm going to stab at my eyes with a pair of rusty forks , ffs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if i read this tired "correlation is not causation" cliche one more time i'm going to stab at my eyes with a pair of rusty forks, ffs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329632</id>
	<title>Re:Study analysed the wrong (old) tech...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259924640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, half the wavelength.  Instead of being bigger than your body, it's only bigger than your head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , half the wavelength .
Instead of being bigger than your body , it 's only bigger than your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, half the wavelength.
Instead of being bigger than your body, it's only bigger than your head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327874</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>orangedan</author>
	<datestamp>1259960040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it's not "JUST like smoking".  Smoking is not all about the disruptiveness to the surrounding people, but that it impacts the actual HEALTH of the people around them.  People talking on their cell phones in public only endangers their own health, because sooner or later someone's going to snap.  If someone is yapping on their cell phone, I put on my headphones.  If someone is smoking around me, I can't very well stop breathing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not " JUST like smoking " .
Smoking is not all about the disruptiveness to the surrounding people , but that it impacts the actual HEALTH of the people around them .
People talking on their cell phones in public only endangers their own health , because sooner or later someone 's going to snap .
If someone is yapping on their cell phone , I put on my headphones .
If someone is smoking around me , I ca n't very well stop breathing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not "JUST like smoking".
Smoking is not all about the disruptiveness to the surrounding people, but that it impacts the actual HEALTH of the people around them.
People talking on their cell phones in public only endangers their own health, because sooner or later someone's going to snap.
If someone is yapping on their cell phone, I put on my headphones.
If someone is smoking around me, I can't very well stop breathing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't control "all other variables."  Otherwise you could prove a negative.  It's impossible to prove that cell phones don't cause cancer, but you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases, so it's extremely unlikely that cell phones are responsible for cancer.  Especially when their use has skyrocketed and cancer cases have not.</p><p>So what this is saying is essentially there is no evidence for cell phones causing cancer.  If you want to argue that they do, you'd have to come up with a pretty strong argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't control " all other variables .
" Otherwise you could prove a negative .
It 's impossible to prove that cell phones do n't cause cancer , but you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases , so it 's extremely unlikely that cell phones are responsible for cancer .
Especially when their use has skyrocketed and cancer cases have not.So what this is saying is essentially there is no evidence for cell phones causing cancer .
If you want to argue that they do , you 'd have to come up with a pretty strong argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't control "all other variables.
"  Otherwise you could prove a negative.
It's impossible to prove that cell phones don't cause cancer, but you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases, so it's extremely unlikely that cell phones are responsible for cancer.
Especially when their use has skyrocketed and cancer cases have not.So what this is saying is essentially there is no evidence for cell phones causing cancer.
If you want to argue that they do, you'd have to come up with a pretty strong argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327292</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>dexmachina</author>
	<datestamp>1259957400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been said by other people already, but it merits repetition so that people will stop using this stupid argument and thinking they're clever for it. This is why studies are accompanied by confidence intervals, etc. If "these other factors counteract it" and there is no net effect then <i>there is no effect</i>. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Yes, we know. We get it. However, causation implies correlation. And by the contrapositive, no correlation implies no causation. Learn statistics before trotting out tired old cliches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been said by other people already , but it merits repetition so that people will stop using this stupid argument and thinking they 're clever for it .
This is why studies are accompanied by confidence intervals , etc .
If " these other factors counteract it " and there is no net effect then there is no effect .
Correlation does n't imply causation .
Yes , we know .
We get it .
However , causation implies correlation .
And by the contrapositive , no correlation implies no causation .
Learn statistics before trotting out tired old cliches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been said by other people already, but it merits repetition so that people will stop using this stupid argument and thinking they're clever for it.
This is why studies are accompanied by confidence intervals, etc.
If "these other factors counteract it" and there is no net effect then there is no effect.
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Yes, we know.
We get it.
However, causation implies correlation.
And by the contrapositive, no correlation implies no causation.
Learn statistics before trotting out tired old cliches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326166</id>
	<title>Shenanigans!</title>
	<author>JoeDuncan</author>
	<datestamp>1259953020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I call statistical shenanigans on the reporting:<p><div class="quote"><p>
1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women," they wrote.
</p><p>
Incidence of meningioma tumours rose by 0.8 per cent a year among men, and rose by 3.8 per cent a year among women</p></div><p>
0.5\% of what? 0.2\% of what?
</p><p>
Give us base rates or it's meaningless!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call statistical shenanigans on the reporting : 1974 to 2003 , the incidence rate of glioma increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women , " they wrote .
Incidence of meningioma tumours rose by 0.8 per cent a year among men , and rose by 3.8 per cent a year among women 0.5 \ % of what ?
0.2 \ % of what ?
Give us base rates or it 's meaningless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call statistical shenanigans on the reporting:
1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women," they wrote.
Incidence of meningioma tumours rose by 0.8 per cent a year among men, and rose by 3.8 per cent a year among women
0.5\% of what?
0.2\% of what?
Give us base rates or it's meaningless!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326108</id>
	<title>Yes,But....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes there is research by scientists and it seems conclusive.<br>I want to know who funded the research for 30 years.<br>Was it research for 30 years or research covering 30 years of cell users?<br>Was it a telco funding this? If not who? What is their agenda?<br>Gosh, with rampant disinformation from the industry/government spun media, who's to say a scientist making a living wouldn't take some payola?<br>There is no security in place to keep this from happening. The public eats up research, reviewed or not.<br>Why should we put our faith in science anymore?<br>Maybe I'm out of line, maybe not.<br>Like the global warming issue, the temptation to follow the money and agenda negates any believability of anyones results.<br>How many other hot issues have so many conflicting findings month to month?<br>How much research is diluted by agenda?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes there is research by scientists and it seems conclusive.I want to know who funded the research for 30 years.Was it research for 30 years or research covering 30 years of cell users ? Was it a telco funding this ?
If not who ?
What is their agenda ? Gosh , with rampant disinformation from the industry/government spun media , who 's to say a scientist making a living would n't take some payola ? There is no security in place to keep this from happening .
The public eats up research , reviewed or not.Why should we put our faith in science anymore ? Maybe I 'm out of line , maybe not.Like the global warming issue , the temptation to follow the money and agenda negates any believability of anyones results.How many other hot issues have so many conflicting findings month to month ? How much research is diluted by agenda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes there is research by scientists and it seems conclusive.I want to know who funded the research for 30 years.Was it research for 30 years or research covering 30 years of cell users?Was it a telco funding this?
If not who?
What is their agenda?Gosh, with rampant disinformation from the industry/government spun media, who's to say a scientist making a living wouldn't take some payola?There is no security in place to keep this from happening.
The public eats up research, reviewed or not.Why should we put our faith in science anymore?Maybe I'm out of line, maybe not.Like the global warming issue, the temptation to follow the money and agenda negates any believability of anyones results.How many other hot issues have so many conflicting findings month to month?How much research is diluted by agenda?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864</id>
	<title>Second-hand...</title>
	<author>jeffshoaf</author>
	<datestamp>1259951700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but what about second-hand cell phone usage? If the person in the room with you or in the car with you is using a cell phone, does it increase <em>your</em> chance of brain tumors?<br> <br>
OK, OK, I'm not totally serious with this (it's more a riff on the whole second-hand smoke issue), but still...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but what about second-hand cell phone usage ?
If the person in the room with you or in the car with you is using a cell phone , does it increase your chance of brain tumors ?
OK , OK , I 'm not totally serious with this ( it 's more a riff on the whole second-hand smoke issue ) , but still.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but what about second-hand cell phone usage?
If the person in the room with you or in the car with you is using a cell phone, does it increase your chance of brain tumors?
OK, OK, I'm not totally serious with this (it's more a riff on the whole second-hand smoke issue), but still...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329756</id>
	<title>correlate this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259925240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just hope the research did not turn out to be funded by Nokia or some other partisan party.</p><p>BTW, totally unbiased research have shown an inverse relation of the price of one's cell phone to the size of one's penis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just hope the research did not turn out to be funded by Nokia or some other partisan party.BTW , totally unbiased research have shown an inverse relation of the price of one 's cell phone to the size of one 's penis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just hope the research did not turn out to be funded by Nokia or some other partisan party.BTW, totally unbiased research have shown an inverse relation of the price of one's cell phone to the size of one's penis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326098</id>
	<title>Re:Same thing as the wifi scare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Abso-posi-lutely!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Abso-posi-lutely !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abso-posi-lutely!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327486</id>
	<title>Re:But they do increase..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been bothered by more people in restaurants being loud while talking to people at their table than by people being loud while talking on their cellphones. The problem is loudness, not who you're talking to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been bothered by more people in restaurants being loud while talking to people at their table than by people being loud while talking on their cellphones .
The problem is loudness , not who you 're talking to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been bothered by more people in restaurants being loud while talking to people at their table than by people being loud while talking on their cellphones.
The problem is loudness, not who you're talking to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325874</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Meshach</author>
	<datestamp>1259951760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.</p></div><p>Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed.  Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed.  There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003 .
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer , but these other factors counteract it .
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables .
Otherwise , it 's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed .
Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed .
There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003.
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.
Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed.
Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed.
There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328026</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although RF is non-ionizing, that does not necessarily mean that there is no link between RF and cancers.</p><p>Cell phones deposit their energy in the brain as heat. Chemical reaction rates and product yields (chemical pathways) are, in general, temperature-dependent. The concern with RF heating is that normal biochemical pathways in the brain will be altered by RF. Furthermore, electromagnetic (RF) fields induce currents within the body, due to electrolytes. These processes may (or may not) induce mutagenic effects, which so far are very poorly understood.</p><p>At best, the scientific evidence so far is inconclusive and contradictory. However, boldly asserting that cell phones do not cause cancers since RF energy is non-ionizing, is way too simplistic. After all, smoking is known to cause lung cancer, even though smoke is also non-ionizing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although RF is non-ionizing , that does not necessarily mean that there is no link between RF and cancers.Cell phones deposit their energy in the brain as heat .
Chemical reaction rates and product yields ( chemical pathways ) are , in general , temperature-dependent .
The concern with RF heating is that normal biochemical pathways in the brain will be altered by RF .
Furthermore , electromagnetic ( RF ) fields induce currents within the body , due to electrolytes .
These processes may ( or may not ) induce mutagenic effects , which so far are very poorly understood.At best , the scientific evidence so far is inconclusive and contradictory .
However , boldly asserting that cell phones do not cause cancers since RF energy is non-ionizing , is way too simplistic .
After all , smoking is known to cause lung cancer , even though smoke is also non-ionizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although RF is non-ionizing, that does not necessarily mean that there is no link between RF and cancers.Cell phones deposit their energy in the brain as heat.
Chemical reaction rates and product yields (chemical pathways) are, in general, temperature-dependent.
The concern with RF heating is that normal biochemical pathways in the brain will be altered by RF.
Furthermore, electromagnetic (RF) fields induce currents within the body, due to electrolytes.
These processes may (or may not) induce mutagenic effects, which so far are very poorly understood.At best, the scientific evidence so far is inconclusive and contradictory.
However, boldly asserting that cell phones do not cause cancers since RF energy is non-ionizing, is way too simplistic.
After all, smoking is known to cause lung cancer, even though smoke is also non-ionizing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329104</id>
	<title>Research Mainly Funded by Wireless Companies</title>
	<author>MystHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1259922120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymiunmtqmyz/Non-Ionizing\%20Radiation.ppt" title="mediafire.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymiunmtqmyz/Non-Ionizing\%20Radiation.ppt</a> [mediafire.com]

Please view that PowerPoint presentation. I have done much research into this specific topic and came to realize that much of the research that has actually been PUBLISHED on the subject finding little to no ill health effects have been funded mainly by companies holding a stake in wireless technologies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.mediafire.com/file/ymiunmtqmyz/Non-Ionizing \ % 20Radiation.ppt [ mediafire.com ] Please view that PowerPoint presentation .
I have done much research into this specific topic and came to realize that much of the research that has actually been PUBLISHED on the subject finding little to no ill health effects have been funded mainly by companies holding a stake in wireless technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymiunmtqmyz/Non-Ionizing\%20Radiation.ppt [mediafire.com]

Please view that PowerPoint presentation.
I have done much research into this specific topic and came to realize that much of the research that has actually been PUBLISHED on the subject finding little to no ill health effects have been funded mainly by companies holding a stake in wireless technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326590</id>
	<title>Re:Yes,But....</title>
	<author>smidget2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1259954580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to know who funded it, read the published paper.  Generally studies are required to say which grants the money used from the study came from.<br> <br>And there is security vs payola in the way of "if you get caught, that's your career" and is generally not worth it.  Also the idea is that your results are repeatable, and your reputation is severely damaged if you are publishing bad science.<br> <br>I also don't know where you are seeing the conflicting views in this.  Some concerns have been expressed in the past, but no one has ever shown any effect that cell phone use has on cancer at all.  You might want to loosen your tin foil hat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know who funded it , read the published paper .
Generally studies are required to say which grants the money used from the study came from .
And there is security vs payola in the way of " if you get caught , that 's your career " and is generally not worth it .
Also the idea is that your results are repeatable , and your reputation is severely damaged if you are publishing bad science .
I also do n't know where you are seeing the conflicting views in this .
Some concerns have been expressed in the past , but no one has ever shown any effect that cell phone use has on cancer at all .
You might want to loosen your tin foil hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know who funded it, read the published paper.
Generally studies are required to say which grants the money used from the study came from.
And there is security vs payola in the way of "if you get caught, that's your career" and is generally not worth it.
Also the idea is that your results are repeatable, and your reputation is severely damaged if you are publishing bad science.
I also don't know where you are seeing the conflicting views in this.
Some concerns have been expressed in the past, but no one has ever shown any effect that cell phone use has on cancer at all.
You might want to loosen your tin foil hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325792</id>
	<title>Which is bad?</title>
	<author>SirBigSpur</author>
	<datestamp>1259951340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... Is it the yellow or white part of the egg?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Is it the yellow or white part of the egg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Is it the yellow or white part of the egg?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332760</id>
	<title>FirstOne is clueless (he's the old tech)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are just another ignorant American, you think the world is as outdated as the US? America is and was a backwards place with regards to cellphones.</p><p>This study was conducted in Scandinavia, the cradle of cell phone technology! GSM was created by Norwegians, sold and developed by Swedes and Finns (Ericsson and Nokia)!</p><p>We used GSM technology from the beginning of the 90s! From 1990 and onwards we had GSM phones everywhere! You Americans only managed to upgrade in the last decade, but Europe and the World has been using GSM for decades now!</p><p>Perhaps you should upgrade your memory, it seems to be lacking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are just another ignorant American , you think the world is as outdated as the US ?
America is and was a backwards place with regards to cellphones.This study was conducted in Scandinavia , the cradle of cell phone technology !
GSM was created by Norwegians , sold and developed by Swedes and Finns ( Ericsson and Nokia ) ! We used GSM technology from the beginning of the 90s !
From 1990 and onwards we had GSM phones everywhere !
You Americans only managed to upgrade in the last decade , but Europe and the World has been using GSM for decades now ! Perhaps you should upgrade your memory , it seems to be lacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are just another ignorant American, you think the world is as outdated as the US?
America is and was a backwards place with regards to cellphones.This study was conducted in Scandinavia, the cradle of cell phone technology!
GSM was created by Norwegians, sold and developed by Swedes and Finns (Ericsson and Nokia)!We used GSM technology from the beginning of the 90s!
From 1990 and onwards we had GSM phones everywhere!
You Americans only managed to upgrade in the last decade, but Europe and the World has been using GSM for decades now!Perhaps you should upgrade your memory, it seems to be lacking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327496</id>
	<title>Re:But they do increase..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by \%100</p></div><p>so wait...does this mean it's also not acceptable to talk to the people in the restaurant? because, I mean, that's like the same thing, right? Talking to somebody in restaurants is bad?</p><p>No, I think that giving a shit about people using cell phones in a perfectly acceptable place and manner increases your douchebagginess by 100\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by \ % 100so wait...does this mean it 's also not acceptable to talk to the people in the restaurant ?
because , I mean , that 's like the same thing , right ?
Talking to somebody in restaurants is bad ? No , I think that giving a shit about people using cell phones in a perfectly acceptable place and manner increases your douchebagginess by 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by \%100so wait...does this mean it's also not acceptable to talk to the people in the restaurant?
because, I mean, that's like the same thing, right?
Talking to somebody in restaurants is bad?No, I think that giving a shit about people using cell phones in a perfectly acceptable place and manner increases your douchebagginess by 100\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327002</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Jarik C-Bol</author>
	<datestamp>1259956260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>well, i am not a doctor of anything, but the thing to remember is, radio frequencies don't just go away if we're not using them. there is 'noise' on every frequency, caused by any number of natural sources (the sun, stars, what have you). we are constently being exposed to them. the real question is, does increased exposure to higher intensity sources frequencies cause any harm to people. for the most part, it seems the answer is no.<br>
<br>
 (this lends a lot of weight to the idea that the people that claim to be allergic to wifi are just a bunch of luddite scaremongers)</htmltext>
<tokenext>well , i am not a doctor of anything , but the thing to remember is , radio frequencies do n't just go away if we 're not using them .
there is 'noise ' on every frequency , caused by any number of natural sources ( the sun , stars , what have you ) .
we are constently being exposed to them .
the real question is , does increased exposure to higher intensity sources frequencies cause any harm to people .
for the most part , it seems the answer is no .
( this lends a lot of weight to the idea that the people that claim to be allergic to wifi are just a bunch of luddite scaremongers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, i am not a doctor of anything, but the thing to remember is, radio frequencies don't just go away if we're not using them.
there is 'noise' on every frequency, caused by any number of natural sources (the sun, stars, what have you).
we are constently being exposed to them.
the real question is, does increased exposure to higher intensity sources frequencies cause any harm to people.
for the most part, it seems the answer is no.
(this lends a lot of weight to the idea that the people that claim to be allergic to wifi are just a bunch of luddite scaremongers)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326048</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1259952540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, depends if the radio tower is sending frequencies upwards or only to the sides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , depends if the radio tower is sending frequencies upwards or only to the sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, depends if the radio tower is sending frequencies upwards or only to the sides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328914</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1259921400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this lends a lot of weight to the idea that the people that claim to be allergic to wifi are just a bunch of luddite scaremongers</p></div><p>It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic\_hypersensitivity" title="wikipedia.org">electromagnetic hypersensitivity</a> [wikipedia.org]. I know a guy who says he suffers from it.</p><p>The point is: he doesn't give a shit what you think about it. He just feels that he suffers from it, and is trying his best to minimize exposure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this lends a lot of weight to the idea that the people that claim to be allergic to wifi are just a bunch of luddite scaremongersIt 's called electromagnetic hypersensitivity [ wikipedia.org ] .
I know a guy who says he suffers from it.The point is : he does n't give a shit what you think about it .
He just feels that he suffers from it , and is trying his best to minimize exposure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this lends a lot of weight to the idea that the people that claim to be allergic to wifi are just a bunch of luddite scaremongersIt's called electromagnetic hypersensitivity [wikipedia.org].
I know a guy who says he suffers from it.The point is: he doesn't give a shit what you think about it.
He just feels that he suffers from it, and is trying his best to minimize exposure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334806</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>jandoedel</author>
	<datestamp>1260027780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Irrelevant. If you heat up your brains so much that they start to cook, cancer is not your biggest problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrelevant .
If you heat up your brains so much that they start to cook , cancer is not your biggest problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrelevant.
If you heat up your brains so much that they start to cook, cancer is not your biggest problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326124</id>
	<title>Well, sure, in Scandanavians</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1259952900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This study shows Scandinavians don't get any increased tumors.  Don't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans won't.  Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This study shows Scandinavians do n't get any increased tumors .
Do n't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans wo n't .
Have n't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This study shows Scandinavians don't get any increased tumors.
Don't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans won't.
Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327432</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Grygus</author>
	<datestamp>1259958120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in the US, at least, folks seem pretty risk-averse.</p></div><p>I think here in the US, it is fashionable to <i>appear</i> risk-averse.  People will say they worry about cancer from their cell phones but we have a nationwide obesity problem; since heart disease kills more Americans than cancer, and given that drugs are a multi-billion dollar industry, I'd say that's strong evidence that the stated concern is lip service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the US , at least , folks seem pretty risk-averse.I think here in the US , it is fashionable to appear risk-averse .
People will say they worry about cancer from their cell phones but we have a nationwide obesity problem ; since heart disease kills more Americans than cancer , and given that drugs are a multi-billion dollar industry , I 'd say that 's strong evidence that the stated concern is lip service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the US, at least, folks seem pretty risk-averse.I think here in the US, it is fashionable to appear risk-averse.
People will say they worry about cancer from their cell phones but we have a nationwide obesity problem; since heart disease kills more Americans than cancer, and given that drugs are a multi-billion dollar industry, I'd say that's strong evidence that the stated concern is lip service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330468</id>
	<title>Re:Needs "duh" tag...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259928420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This story needs the "duh" tag. Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones. If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.</p></div><p>To be fair, before mobile phones people rarely pressed an  RF emitting device directly to their skull every single day of their lives.</p><p>It wasn't some crackpot hypothesis that couldn't possibly have been accurate. "duh" seems</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story needs the " duh " tag .
Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones .
If RF caused cancer , we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.To be fair , before mobile phones people rarely pressed an RF emitting device directly to their skull every single day of their lives.It was n't some crackpot hypothesis that could n't possibly have been accurate .
" duh " seems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story needs the "duh" tag.
Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones.
If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.To be fair, before mobile phones people rarely pressed an  RF emitting device directly to their skull every single day of their lives.It wasn't some crackpot hypothesis that couldn't possibly have been accurate.
"duh" seems
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329444</id>
	<title>Re:I'm more worried about...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259923740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think of it as birth control for men.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think of it as birth control for men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think of it as birth control for men.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328660</id>
	<title>Re:"Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. But I suppose that the detection rate of malignant tumors would have stayed at roughly 100\% since it has been customary in Scandinavia to perform autopsies on patients with unknown causes of death during the whole period from 1974 to now.</p><p>As a Swedish person I can elaborate a little bit more: Scandinavians have a long history of what we literally refer to as population bookkeeping. It goes way back and includes cause of death, such as cancer or fever. (Other causes included being taken away by trolls...)</p><p>Nowadays, Swedish newborns receive their "personnummer" within seconds of birth. Researchers can compile nearly flawless statistics based on records that have had all identification information removed from them. It will probably be a goldmine for future researchers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
But I suppose that the detection rate of malignant tumors would have stayed at roughly 100 \ % since it has been customary in Scandinavia to perform autopsies on patients with unknown causes of death during the whole period from 1974 to now.As a Swedish person I can elaborate a little bit more : Scandinavians have a long history of what we literally refer to as population bookkeeping .
It goes way back and includes cause of death , such as cancer or fever .
( Other causes included being taken away by trolls... ) Nowadays , Swedish newborns receive their " personnummer " within seconds of birth .
Researchers can compile nearly flawless statistics based on records that have had all identification information removed from them .
It will probably be a goldmine for future researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
But I suppose that the detection rate of malignant tumors would have stayed at roughly 100\% since it has been customary in Scandinavia to perform autopsies on patients with unknown causes of death during the whole period from 1974 to now.As a Swedish person I can elaborate a little bit more: Scandinavians have a long history of what we literally refer to as population bookkeeping.
It goes way back and includes cause of death, such as cancer or fever.
(Other causes included being taken away by trolls...)Nowadays, Swedish newborns receive their "personnummer" within seconds of birth.
Researchers can compile nearly flawless statistics based on records that have had all identification information removed from them.
It will probably be a goldmine for future researchers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325964</id>
	<title>"Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The widespread availability of tomography for one thing, which could have been expected to account for a <b>higher</b> detection rate of tumors, even in the absence of Chernobyl fallout and powerful EM emitters glued to everyone's ear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The widespread availability of tomography for one thing , which could have been expected to account for a higher detection rate of tumors , even in the absence of Chernobyl fallout and powerful EM emitters glued to everyone 's ear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The widespread availability of tomography for one thing, which could have been expected to account for a higher detection rate of tumors, even in the absence of Chernobyl fallout and powerful EM emitters glued to everyone's ear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329780</id>
	<title>Just to add nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259925360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I worked for the largest american wireless company, there was one customer who called in because "his cell phone caused buzzing in his head"</p><p>I advised him to see a doctor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked for the largest american wireless company , there was one customer who called in because " his cell phone caused buzzing in his head " I advised him to see a doctor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked for the largest american wireless company, there was one customer who called in because "his cell phone caused buzzing in his head"I advised him to see a doctor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</id>
	<title>Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003 .
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer , but these other factors counteract it .
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables .
Otherwise , it 's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003.
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.
To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.
Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325856</id>
	<title>B*S</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the f * k used cells 30 years ago ? !
Also , there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now , so this is pure faked corporatism support,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?!
Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326650</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>cbreaker</author>
	<datestamp>1259954760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Risk is the price of freedom, and the sooner people learn this, the sooner we can move on to improving our civilization.<br><br>Unfortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, and that's bad news for freedom.<br><br>ps.   If you stop using a cell phone after years of use, you won't feel physically and mentally ill.   Not the same as smoking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Risk is the price of freedom , and the sooner people learn this , the sooner we can move on to improving our civilization.Unfortunately , the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction , and that 's bad news for freedom.ps .
If you stop using a cell phone after years of use , you wo n't feel physically and mentally ill. Not the same as smoking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Risk is the price of freedom, and the sooner people learn this, the sooner we can move on to improving our civilization.Unfortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, and that's bad news for freedom.ps.
If you stop using a cell phone after years of use, you won't feel physically and mentally ill.   Not the same as smoking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348</id>
	<title>If my calculations are correct...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in a 29 year period rates have gone up:</p><p>14.5\% for males.<br>5.8\% for females.</p><p>And this isn't significant how? I'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in a 29 year period rates have gone up : 14.5 \ % for males.5.8 \ % for females.And this is n't significant how ?
I 'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a 29 year period rates have gone up:14.5\% for males.5.8\% for females.And this isn't significant how?
I'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326006</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259952360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and any well performed study will have accounted for those confounding variables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and any well performed study will have accounted for those confounding variables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and any well performed study will have accounted for those confounding variables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328966</id>
	<title>Cell phones may cause cancer; we do not  know yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259921640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tobacco industry succeeded in hiding the fact  that  smoking caused cancer for 50 years. They did so by advertising and suppressing unfavorable research.   Why? It was the money!</p><p>Could the cell phone industry do the same? Why would they?</p><p>If it take 20 years to cause cancer - it may not be yet apparent in the general population but it may  be apparent if you compare  long term high users against low users. Cell phone carriers have all the the information. So the data is available to them.</p><p>A good book to read is: The Secret History of the War on Cancer  Devra Davis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tobacco industry succeeded in hiding the fact that smoking caused cancer for 50 years .
They did so by advertising and suppressing unfavorable research .
Why ? It was the money ! Could the cell phone industry do the same ?
Why would they ? If it take 20 years to cause cancer - it may not be yet apparent in the general population but it may be apparent if you compare long term high users against low users .
Cell phone carriers have all the the information .
So the data is available to them.A good book to read is : The Secret History of the War on Cancer Devra Davis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tobacco industry succeeded in hiding the fact  that  smoking caused cancer for 50 years.
They did so by advertising and suppressing unfavorable research.
Why? It was the money!Could the cell phone industry do the same?
Why would they?If it take 20 years to cause cancer - it may not be yet apparent in the general population but it may  be apparent if you compare  long term high users against low users.
Cell phone carriers have all the the information.
So the data is available to them.A good book to read is: The Secret History of the War on Cancer  Devra Davis</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328818</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would buy a phone that switches to a passive WiFi mode, similar to airplane mode, whenever possible.</p><p>As for cars, I am in favor of writing legislation to make driving aids like anti-skid mandatory. I am also one of those anonymous assholes who want to legislate in an alcohol ignition lock into <i>your</i> car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would buy a phone that switches to a passive WiFi mode , similar to airplane mode , whenever possible.As for cars , I am in favor of writing legislation to make driving aids like anti-skid mandatory .
I am also one of those anonymous assholes who want to legislate in an alcohol ignition lock into your car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would buy a phone that switches to a passive WiFi mode, similar to airplane mode, whenever possible.As for cars, I am in favor of writing legislation to make driving aids like anti-skid mandatory.
I am also one of those anonymous assholes who want to legislate in an alcohol ignition lock into your car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326536</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>Maxmin</author>
	<datestamp>1259954400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specifically "radio frequency," as in only those wavelengths/frequencies used to transmit sound, image and data?  Probably not.</p><p>X-rays, gamma rays, alpha/beta particles, neutrons, high frequency UV, etc - these are ionizing.</p><p>Microwaves affect the kinetic energy of dielectric materials, such as water.  A different effect than ionization.  I also question the penetration depth of cellphone microwaves - do they get much beyond the dermis and adipose layers?</p><p>I wonder if there are other effects besides cancer that aren't going noticed, such as effects on the cochlea.  When I first started using cellphones, I'd get this whitenoise tinnitus type sound in my ear, as I brought the cellphone up to the side of my head - before and after the callee answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically " radio frequency , " as in only those wavelengths/frequencies used to transmit sound , image and data ?
Probably not.X-rays , gamma rays , alpha/beta particles , neutrons , high frequency UV , etc - these are ionizing.Microwaves affect the kinetic energy of dielectric materials , such as water .
A different effect than ionization .
I also question the penetration depth of cellphone microwaves - do they get much beyond the dermis and adipose layers ? I wonder if there are other effects besides cancer that are n't going noticed , such as effects on the cochlea .
When I first started using cellphones , I 'd get this whitenoise tinnitus type sound in my ear , as I brought the cellphone up to the side of my head - before and after the callee answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically "radio frequency," as in only those wavelengths/frequencies used to transmit sound, image and data?
Probably not.X-rays, gamma rays, alpha/beta particles, neutrons, high frequency UV, etc - these are ionizing.Microwaves affect the kinetic energy of dielectric materials, such as water.
A different effect than ionization.
I also question the penetration depth of cellphone microwaves - do they get much beyond the dermis and adipose layers?I wonder if there are other effects besides cancer that aren't going noticed, such as effects on the cochlea.
When I first started using cellphones, I'd get this whitenoise tinnitus type sound in my ear, as I brought the cellphone up to the side of my head - before and after the callee answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328564</id>
	<title>Re:So what if it did?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1259919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault.  There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate".</p> </div><p>That's because God is difficult to sue, and it is even harder to enforce a judgement against Him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If something bad happens , it is ALWAYS someone 's fault .
There is no room for what were once called " accidents " , " acts of God " , or " fate " .
That 's because God is difficult to sue , and it is even harder to enforce a judgement against Him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault.
There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate".
That's because God is difficult to sue, and it is even harder to enforce a judgement against Him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327164</id>
	<title>Re:But they do increase..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259956800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess to \%100</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess to \ % 100FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess to \%100FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328630</id>
	<title>restaurants?  -on the road!</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1259920020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That cell phone might not increase your cancer risk, but if you don't stop texting and put that damn thing down and try to drive like a normal person it for sure will get you shot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That cell phone might not increase your cancer risk , but if you do n't stop texting and put that damn thing down and try to drive like a normal person it for sure will get you shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That cell phone might not increase your cancer risk, but if you don't stop texting and put that damn thing down and try to drive like a normal person it for sure will get you shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327654</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Seth024</author>
	<datestamp>1259959080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps there is another factor that causes cancer that has decreased in the last 30 years.
<br>Asbestos use has been declining for half a century (and has been banned in most countries in the last 20 years). This could have easily hidden the cancer growth from cell phones.
<br> <em>(Note that Asbestos causes lung and kidney cancer but no brain cancer. This was just used as an example)</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there is another factor that causes cancer that has decreased in the last 30 years .
Asbestos use has been declining for half a century ( and has been banned in most countries in the last 20 years ) .
This could have easily hidden the cancer growth from cell phones .
( Note that Asbestos causes lung and kidney cancer but no brain cancer .
This was just used as an example )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there is another factor that causes cancer that has decreased in the last 30 years.
Asbestos use has been declining for half a century (and has been banned in most countries in the last 20 years).
This could have easily hidden the cancer growth from cell phones.
(Note that Asbestos causes lung and kidney cancer but no brain cancer.
This was just used as an example)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326186</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1259953140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.</p></div><p>Not bloody likely. Not only would these mysterious "other factors" have had to coincidentally lowered brain cancer rate to the same <b>degree</b> cell phone usage presumably increased it, but it would have had to do it at the exact same <b>time</b>. This theory gets cut away by Occam's Razor pretty early.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003 .
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer , but these other factors counteract it.Not bloody likely .
Not only would these mysterious " other factors " have had to coincidentally lowered brain cancer rate to the same degree cell phone usage presumably increased it , but it would have had to do it at the exact same time .
This theory gets cut away by Occam 's Razor pretty early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003.
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.Not bloody likely.
Not only would these mysterious "other factors" have had to coincidentally lowered brain cancer rate to the same degree cell phone usage presumably increased it, but it would have had to do it at the exact same time.
This theory gets cut away by Occam's Razor pretty early.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325946</id>
	<title>Good!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I can take this tin foil hat off of my head now? It makes it hard to hear the people on the other end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can take this tin foil hat off of my head now ?
It makes it hard to hear the people on the other end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can take this tin foil hat off of my head now?
It makes it hard to hear the people on the other end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880</id>
	<title>Same thing as the wifi scare...</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1259951820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's people buying into the sensationalism that the media perpetuates around anything vaguely related to human healthcare. Dumbing everything down to the level of the stupidest person consuming the news results in demeaning everyone else.<br> <br>
There is so much potential for online news. They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science. I wish I would hear about p-values and numbers in scientific notation! I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units. I want reporters to link to the original scientific paper they are writing a piece about or what's better: ask for and pressure scientists into being able to distribute the paper itself.<br> <br>
I want to read news with an Atom feed aggregator, where I find the paper the article refers to as a directly downloadable content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's people buying into the sensationalism that the media perpetuates around anything vaguely related to human healthcare .
Dumbing everything down to the level of the stupidest person consuming the news results in demeaning everyone else .
There is so much potential for online news .
They could be using , omg , hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science .
I wish I would hear about p-values and numbers in scientific notation !
I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress , but in proper SI units .
I want reporters to link to the original scientific paper they are writing a piece about or what 's better : ask for and pressure scientists into being able to distribute the paper itself .
I want to read news with an Atom feed aggregator , where I find the paper the article refers to as a directly downloadable content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's people buying into the sensationalism that the media perpetuates around anything vaguely related to human healthcare.
Dumbing everything down to the level of the stupidest person consuming the news results in demeaning everyone else.
There is so much potential for online news.
They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science.
I wish I would hear about p-values and numbers in scientific notation!
I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units.
I want reporters to link to the original scientific paper they are writing a piece about or what's better: ask for and pressure scientists into being able to distribute the paper itself.
I want to read news with an Atom feed aggregator, where I find the paper the article refers to as a directly downloadable content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334908</id>
	<title>Overstating these results</title>
	<author>DonLab</author>
	<datestamp>1260028620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of one's gut reaction to claims of a cell phone / cancer connection, I think the author of this news article overstated its significance. This wasn't simply a "30-year study of 16 million subjects." It was a statistical analysis - not a clinical experiment - that looked for overarching population-wide anomalies during a six-year span ending in 2003 (extracted from a data sample extending back to '74). Couple of issues with that: First, post hoc analysis are by their nature presumptively suspect. Hindsight bias is always 20-20. Also, a study like this lacks the granularity and specificity to be definitive. Were there, for example, differences in cancer-rate trends between heavy phone users and non-users? Finally, one needs to question the study authors' key assumption that "any cancers that would arise would surely have appeared within 5-10 years after widespread cell use began." The effects of ionizing radiation can take decades to produce clinical results. If RF is indeed a danger, one can't simply assume that this lower-energy form of radiation would not take at least as long to produce harm. That reasoning threatens to be circular. Now I take no position one way or the other on the phone/cancer debate, and I see this study as valuable if viewed in perspective. A statistical analysis of national populations certainly does have evidentiary value. But these results are merely one piece of cumulative data, and certainly not as probative as a well-conducted clinical study of a much smaller population. In science, bigger isn't always enough to mean better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of one 's gut reaction to claims of a cell phone / cancer connection , I think the author of this news article overstated its significance .
This was n't simply a " 30-year study of 16 million subjects .
" It was a statistical analysis - not a clinical experiment - that looked for overarching population-wide anomalies during a six-year span ending in 2003 ( extracted from a data sample extending back to '74 ) .
Couple of issues with that : First , post hoc analysis are by their nature presumptively suspect .
Hindsight bias is always 20-20 .
Also , a study like this lacks the granularity and specificity to be definitive .
Were there , for example , differences in cancer-rate trends between heavy phone users and non-users ?
Finally , one needs to question the study authors ' key assumption that " any cancers that would arise would surely have appeared within 5-10 years after widespread cell use began .
" The effects of ionizing radiation can take decades to produce clinical results .
If RF is indeed a danger , one ca n't simply assume that this lower-energy form of radiation would not take at least as long to produce harm .
That reasoning threatens to be circular .
Now I take no position one way or the other on the phone/cancer debate , and I see this study as valuable if viewed in perspective .
A statistical analysis of national populations certainly does have evidentiary value .
But these results are merely one piece of cumulative data , and certainly not as probative as a well-conducted clinical study of a much smaller population .
In science , bigger is n't always enough to mean better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of one's gut reaction to claims of a cell phone / cancer connection, I think the author of this news article overstated its significance.
This wasn't simply a "30-year study of 16 million subjects.
" It was a statistical analysis - not a clinical experiment - that looked for overarching population-wide anomalies during a six-year span ending in 2003 (extracted from a data sample extending back to '74).
Couple of issues with that: First, post hoc analysis are by their nature presumptively suspect.
Hindsight bias is always 20-20.
Also, a study like this lacks the granularity and specificity to be definitive.
Were there, for example, differences in cancer-rate trends between heavy phone users and non-users?
Finally, one needs to question the study authors' key assumption that "any cancers that would arise would surely have appeared within 5-10 years after widespread cell use began.
" The effects of ionizing radiation can take decades to produce clinical results.
If RF is indeed a danger, one can't simply assume that this lower-energy form of radiation would not take at least as long to produce harm.
That reasoning threatens to be circular.
Now I take no position one way or the other on the phone/cancer debate, and I see this study as valuable if viewed in perspective.
A statistical analysis of national populations certainly does have evidentiary value.
But these results are merely one piece of cumulative data, and certainly not as probative as a well-conducted clinical study of a much smaller population.
In science, bigger isn't always enough to mean better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334874</id>
	<title>Re:If my calculations are correct...</title>
	<author>jandoedel</author>
	<datestamp>1260028320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe the rate of detection went up the last 30 years? now we have mri, pet, spect, ct-scans, and other ways of looking inside a person's brain and noticing tumors that otherwise would just have been diagnosed as "he had a stroke" or wouldn't have caused death. (sometimes tumors stop growing and you can live long enough to die of something else)</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe the rate of detection went up the last 30 years ?
now we have mri , pet , spect , ct-scans , and other ways of looking inside a person 's brain and noticing tumors that otherwise would just have been diagnosed as " he had a stroke " or would n't have caused death .
( sometimes tumors stop growing and you can live long enough to die of something else )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe the rate of detection went up the last 30 years?
now we have mri, pet, spect, ct-scans, and other ways of looking inside a person's brain and noticing tumors that otherwise would just have been diagnosed as "he had a stroke" or wouldn't have caused death.
(sometimes tumors stop growing and you can live long enough to die of something else)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326540</id>
	<title>Long term exposure</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1259954460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Causing cancer takes time.  Just look at smokers.  If (I doubt it) but if there is a link to be found I wouldn't expect to see the cancer rate to even begin to rise until the 20teens or so.  If anybody has a cell/bag/carphone induced cancer now it would probably be someone who started with the bulky things back in the 80s and what percentage of the population is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Causing cancer takes time .
Just look at smokers .
If ( I doubt it ) but if there is a link to be found I would n't expect to see the cancer rate to even begin to rise until the 20teens or so .
If anybody has a cell/bag/carphone induced cancer now it would probably be someone who started with the bulky things back in the 80s and what percentage of the population is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Causing cancer takes time.
Just look at smokers.
If (I doubt it) but if there is a link to be found I wouldn't expect to see the cancer rate to even begin to rise until the 20teens or so.
If anybody has a cell/bag/carphone induced cancer now it would probably be someone who started with the bulky things back in the 80s and what percentage of the population is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372</id>
	<title>Re:extremes</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; &gt; Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?</p><p>&gt; No, radio waves are non-ionizing.</p><p>&gt; You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.</p><p>Cooking = damage. And the damage can increase the odds of cancer.</p><p>See:<br><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7965380.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7965380.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]<br><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=7182731&amp;page=1" title="go.com">http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=7182731&amp;page=1</a> [go.com]</p><p>Quote: "Esophageal cancer numbers rose in regions where people preferred their tea very hot, and dropped where tea was served at a cooler temperature. "</p><p>"But unlike booze and cigarettes, Malekzadeh said evidence in his study showed it's not the chemicals in the tea that matters. "</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates ? &gt; No , radio waves are non-ionizing. &gt; You might get cooked as in a microwave , but no cancer.Cooking = damage .
And the damage can increase the odds of cancer.See : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7965380.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] http : //abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story ? id = 7182731&amp;page = 1 [ go.com ] Quote : " Esophageal cancer numbers rose in regions where people preferred their tea very hot , and dropped where tea was served at a cooler temperature .
" " But unlike booze and cigarettes , Malekzadeh said evidence in his study showed it 's not the chemicals in the tea that matters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; &gt; Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?&gt; No, radio waves are non-ionizing.&gt; You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.Cooking = damage.
And the damage can increase the odds of cancer.See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7965380.stm [bbc.co.uk]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=7182731&amp;page=1 [go.com]Quote: "Esophageal cancer numbers rose in regions where people preferred their tea very hot, and dropped where tea was served at a cooler temperature.
""But unlike booze and cigarettes, Malekzadeh said evidence in his study showed it's not the chemicals in the tea that matters.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326120</id>
	<title>BAH! EXPERTS! WHAT DO THEY KNOW?</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1259952840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sick and tired of "Experts" telling me how to do things. When you spend your whole life studying one thing, you end up knowing nothing. Common sense is all you need.</p><p>Now I'm off to read the horoscope to see if I should buy a lottery ticket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sick and tired of " Experts " telling me how to do things .
When you spend your whole life studying one thing , you end up knowing nothing .
Common sense is all you need.Now I 'm off to read the horoscope to see if I should buy a lottery ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sick and tired of "Experts" telling me how to do things.
When you spend your whole life studying one thing, you end up knowing nothing.
Common sense is all you need.Now I'm off to read the horoscope to see if I should buy a lottery ticket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30333952</id>
	<title>No bias there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scandinavia - the region of the world responsible for Nokia and Ericsson and the bulk of the (design at least) of the worlds mobile telephones.</p><p>Their Attitude:- Nope, nothing to see here.</p><p>You expected a different result?</p><p>There are doctors in many other parts of the world that suggest differently. I have no facts to back me up other than the suggestions of some prominent medico's, but sheesh, smoking was not bad for you in the 50's.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/randomambling</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scandinavia - the region of the world responsible for Nokia and Ericsson and the bulk of the ( design at least ) of the worlds mobile telephones.Their Attitude : - Nope , nothing to see here.You expected a different result ? There are doctors in many other parts of the world that suggest differently .
I have no facts to back me up other than the suggestions of some prominent medico 's , but sheesh , smoking was not bad for you in the 50 's .
/randomambling</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scandinavia - the region of the world responsible for Nokia and Ericsson and the bulk of the (design at least) of the worlds mobile telephones.Their Attitude:- Nope, nothing to see here.You expected a different result?There are doctors in many other parts of the world that suggest differently.
I have no facts to back me up other than the suggestions of some prominent medico's, but sheesh, smoking was not bad for you in the 50's.
/randomambling</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330196</id>
	<title>Say it right</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259926980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not "shows no link". That implies evidence shows that there is no link. Such a statement does not follow from the design and methodology. The study "fails to find" or "does not show" a link, in the technical language of science "fails to reject the null hypothesis".</p><p>It's not just due to this important distinction that many will attempt to use to claim support for their pet theories that will keep the issue from dying. There is more than ample evidence that RF of similar frequencies from other sources may result in increased morbidity of several cancers. All make the same sort of disclaimer, in that the magnitude of exposure noted in their study may not be representative of the amount necessary to trigger problems, and that although the studies lasted years, the development of problems from exposure may take much longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not " shows no link " .
That implies evidence shows that there is no link .
Such a statement does not follow from the design and methodology .
The study " fails to find " or " does not show " a link , in the technical language of science " fails to reject the null hypothesis " .It 's not just due to this important distinction that many will attempt to use to claim support for their pet theories that will keep the issue from dying .
There is more than ample evidence that RF of similar frequencies from other sources may result in increased morbidity of several cancers .
All make the same sort of disclaimer , in that the magnitude of exposure noted in their study may not be representative of the amount necessary to trigger problems , and that although the studies lasted years , the development of problems from exposure may take much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not "shows no link".
That implies evidence shows that there is no link.
Such a statement does not follow from the design and methodology.
The study "fails to find" or "does not show" a link, in the technical language of science "fails to reject the null hypothesis".It's not just due to this important distinction that many will attempt to use to claim support for their pet theories that will keep the issue from dying.
There is more than ample evidence that RF of similar frequencies from other sources may result in increased morbidity of several cancers.
All make the same sort of disclaimer, in that the magnitude of exposure noted in their study may not be representative of the amount necessary to trigger problems, and that although the studies lasted years, the development of problems from exposure may take much longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30333976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1625241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30332638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30333976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30329394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30331558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30330512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327048
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30334852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30326048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30327002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30328466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1625241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1625241.30325792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
