<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_1614221</id>
	<title>Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261417080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Cytalk writes <i>"A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to <a href="http://blog.cytalk.com/2009/12/cell-phone-to-carry-cancer-warning-like-cigarettes/">require cell phones to carry warnings</a> that they can cause brain cancer, although <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/1625241/Cell-Phones-Dont-Increase-Chances-of-Brain-Cancer">there is no consensus among scientists that they do</a> and industry leaders dispute the claim. The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no US states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/21/earlyshow/health/main6004977.shtml">wants his city to be the nation&rsquo;s first</a> to require the warnings."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cytalk writes " A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer , although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim .
The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries , though no US states require them , according to the National Conference of State Legislators .
A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco , where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation    s first to require the warnings .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cytalk writes "A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.
The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no US states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.
A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation’s first to require the warnings.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516246</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1261387140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against.</p><p>There was a large one that came out a couple weeks ago that also found no correlation.</p><p>The types of things that people have found that indicates it causes tumors is all circumstantial, like what side of the head brain tumors appear on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not .
Since then , no published work for or against.There was a large one that came out a couple weeks ago that also found no correlation.The types of things that people have found that indicates it causes tumors is all circumstantial , like what side of the head brain tumors appear on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not.
Since then, no published work for or against.There was a large one that came out a couple weeks ago that also found no correlation.The types of things that people have found that indicates it causes tumors is all circumstantial, like what side of the head brain tumors appear on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515772</id>
	<title>GODDAMN!</title>
	<author>fudgefactor7</author>
	<datestamp>1261427940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is retarded. They don't cause cancer. That's been proven. Can I get a sticker that says "Stickers may cause lung parasites?" No, why? Because it's stupid. These fucking idiots want to swim with the scientists but they aren't even qualified to get out of the kiddie pool with their floater-level intellect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is retarded .
They do n't cause cancer .
That 's been proven .
Can I get a sticker that says " Stickers may cause lung parasites ?
" No , why ?
Because it 's stupid .
These fucking idiots want to swim with the scientists but they are n't even qualified to get out of the kiddie pool with their floater-level intellect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is retarded.
They don't cause cancer.
That's been proven.
Can I get a sticker that says "Stickers may cause lung parasites?
" No, why?
Because it's stupid.
These fucking idiots want to swim with the scientists but they aren't even qualified to get out of the kiddie pool with their floater-level intellect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30524670</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1261502220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
What?!  Never mind the radiation, it's the thought of all those chemicals about to leak into my ear that's really worrying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging .
What ? ! Never mind the radiation , it 's the thought of all those chemicals about to leak into my ear that 's really worrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.
What?!  Never mind the radiation, it's the thought of all those chemicals about to leak into my ear that's really worrying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514300</id>
	<title>Living is hazardous to your health</title>
	<author>Khris</author>
	<datestamp>1261421460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, there isn't anything on this world that will not cause damage when used in excess.

We as a society have become so addicted to everything that we've completely lost the meaning of "Moderation".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , there is n't anything on this world that will not cause damage when used in excess .
We as a society have become so addicted to everything that we 've completely lost the meaning of " Moderation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, there isn't anything on this world that will not cause damage when used in excess.
We as a society have become so addicted to everything that we've completely lost the meaning of "Moderation".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515398</id>
	<title>Nick Taylor...</title>
	<author>ghostis</author>
	<datestamp>1261426140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's Nick Taylor when you need him?</p><p>(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's Nick Taylor when you need him ?
( http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's Nick Taylor when you need him?
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514958</id>
	<title>Seriously people...</title>
	<author>VanGarrett</author>
	<datestamp>1261424280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we save ourselves a lot of work, and start labeling the things that DON'T cause cancer, instead? The savings in natural resources alone would be drastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we save ourselves a lot of work , and start labeling the things that DO N'T cause cancer , instead ?
The savings in natural resources alone would be drastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we save ourselves a lot of work, and start labeling the things that DON'T cause cancer, instead?
The savings in natural resources alone would be drastic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30529536</id>
	<title>Thank You For Smoking</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1261478580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank You For Smoking becomes reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank You For Smoking becomes reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank You For Smoking becomes reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514416</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>bdcrazy</author>
	<datestamp>1261421940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the big thing is that 'cancer' is now the boogieman.  We're slowly getting rid of all sorts of things that used to kill us.  We're living longer and healthier, yet cancer can kill anybody at anytime.  So once you start getting rid of everything else, cancer is one of the few left.  Sure heart disease is a big deal, but cancer, that is EVIL.  My warning is thus: No matter what you do, you're gonna die.  As a parting shot for the paranoid, staying in your house is hazardous because your roof COULD COLLAPSE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big thing is that 'cancer ' is now the boogieman .
We 're slowly getting rid of all sorts of things that used to kill us .
We 're living longer and healthier , yet cancer can kill anybody at anytime .
So once you start getting rid of everything else , cancer is one of the few left .
Sure heart disease is a big deal , but cancer , that is EVIL .
My warning is thus : No matter what you do , you 're gon na die .
As a parting shot for the paranoid , staying in your house is hazardous because your roof COULD COLLAPSE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big thing is that 'cancer' is now the boogieman.
We're slowly getting rid of all sorts of things that used to kill us.
We're living longer and healthier, yet cancer can kill anybody at anytime.
So once you start getting rid of everything else, cancer is one of the few left.
Sure heart disease is a big deal, but cancer, that is EVIL.
My warning is thus: No matter what you do, you're gonna die.
As a parting shot for the paranoid, staying in your house is hazardous because your roof COULD COLLAPSE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518790</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic</title>
	<author>linhux</author>
	<datestamp>1261402860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your state has invented the IRL EULA. Congratulations!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your state has invented the IRL EULA .
Congratulations !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your state has invented the IRL EULA.
Congratulations!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290</id>
	<title>You always need to be first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items.  It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it?  With this stuff, we seem to be living in a culture of fear.  So it's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react, so that they can claim to be the first, and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better.<p>

I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.  </p><p>

I am all for safety, but lets get real here.  How long have cell phones been around?  Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units.  If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance.  I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.</p><p>
Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists.  The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner.  If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology.  If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.  </p><p>

There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that you need to be first with many things , such as warnings on consumer items .
It 's a race to keep your citizens safe , or is it ?
With this stuff , we seem to be living in a culture of fear .
So it 's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react , so that they can claim to be the first , and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better .
I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday , and their are indeed two camps , the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject , and the second who claim otherwise .
I am all for safety , but lets get real here .
How long have cell phones been around ?
Not that long , In the past I 've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units .
If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time , they would dance .
I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant , but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study .
Personally , I do n't trust the motives of any of the current scientists .
The industry wants to downplay any threat , and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner .
If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology .
If we listen exclusively to the first , well , then we may be in trouble .
There has to be some middle ground somewhere , where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items.
It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it?
With this stuff, we seem to be living in a culture of fear.
So it's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react, so that they can claim to be the first, and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better.
I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.
I am all for safety, but lets get real here.
How long have cell phones been around?
Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units.
If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance.
I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.
Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists.
The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner.
If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology.
If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.
There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514704</id>
	<title>Water can kill you</title>
	<author>Billkamm</author>
	<datestamp>1261423200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you drink too much water too quickly it can kill you.  I think all bottled water needs warning labels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you drink too much water too quickly it can kill you .
I think all bottled water needs warning labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you drink too much water too quickly it can kill you.
I think all bottled water needs warning labels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515550</id>
	<title>no consensus among scientists</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1261426920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]</p></div><p>That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one.  There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese.  There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer.  And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.</p><p>There's no consensus, because it is false.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no consensus among scientists that they [ cause cancer ] That 's a trollish statement if I 've ever heard one .
There 's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese .
There 's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer .
And there 's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.There 's no consensus , because it is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one.
There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese.
There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer.
And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.There's no consensus, because it is false.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1261425120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.</p><p>Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.</p><p>They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>I agree.  A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.</p><p>What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not.   Since then, no published work for or against.<br>---</p><p>I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I'm definitely guessing it isn't probable and that I'll need a lot more FACTS before I'm going to believe this...</p><p>Why?</p><p>The big bang is still hitting us with EMR.  The sun.  Power lines.  Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet.  Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere.  And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.</p><p>Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds.  That means it cannot damage any molecules in your body, including DNA.<br>----</p><p>As it stands, I'm much more worried about our diet, our environment, our politics, our use of resources, and things like Cigarettes....  but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.</p><p>What is more likely to kill you?  Cell phone (maybe) caused brain tumors (as rare as that probably is, if at all), or congestive heart failure from poor diet. Or what about a car accident?  Hell, we're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously, despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.</p><p>Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.Next will be the " Vaccines cause Autism " warnings , the " Aspartame makes you Fat " warnings and the " Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug " warnings.They really should have a " Politics makes you a fuckhead " warning .
.I agree .
A search for published science ( from university library resources ) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not .
Since then , no published work for or against.---I 'm not saying it is n't possible , but I 'm definitely guessing it is n't probable and that I 'll need a lot more FACTS before I 'm going to believe this...Why ? The big bang is still hitting us with EMR .
The sun .
Power lines .
Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet .
Radio waves , analog and digital are everywhere .
And so you know , the powerlines do n't stop outside your house , they go in your house and all around your rooms , and when you 've got something on , the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds .
That means it can not damage any molecules in your body , including DNA.----As it stands , I 'm much more worried about our diet , our environment , our politics , our use of resources , and things like Cigarettes.... but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.What is more likely to kill you ?
Cell phone ( maybe ) caused brain tumors ( as rare as that probably is , if at all ) , or congestive heart failure from poor diet .
Or what about a car accident ?
Hell , we 're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously , despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.
.I agree.
A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not.
Since then, no published work for or against.---I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I'm definitely guessing it isn't probable and that I'll need a lot more FACTS before I'm going to believe this...Why?The big bang is still hitting us with EMR.
The sun.
Power lines.
Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet.
Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere.
And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds.
That means it cannot damage any molecules in your body, including DNA.----As it stands, I'm much more worried about our diet, our environment, our politics, our use of resources, and things like Cigarettes....  but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.What is more likely to kill you?
Cell phone (maybe) caused brain tumors (as rare as that probably is, if at all), or congestive heart failure from poor diet.
Or what about a car accident?
Hell, we're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously, despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515658</id>
	<title>Re:Probably not a bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261427460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A requirement to post \_some\_ warnings and \_some\_ information on \_some\_ products is a very good thing in \_some\_ cases.  eg: ingredients on food, and drugs, list of major side effects on drugs,  Age min and  small objects on toys,...<br>Some may seem like an overkill, like  "don't drink if you want to be able to see and read this" on antifreeze.</p><p>But we clearly should not put warnings against everyday small risks of using items.  Every item carries with it some risks.  You can choke on apples and fell of a bad.  Should they carry warnings?  How about airplane tickets:   "Boarding an airplane greatly increases your chances of getting communicable diseases" , " Flying in a plane increases you chances of falling down and hurting yourself"...?        Too many warnings and we will simply stop reading the labels.</p><p>Warnings, like those on potential harm from holding cell phone to your ear for too many hours, belong in press reporting the research.</p><p><b> On the other hand!!!</b></p><p><b>I'd like to see warnings on the voting ballots:</b></p><p><b>Voting and electing this person to a political office will likely cause irreparable harm to you and to the society...<br>
&nbsp; -- Momus</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A requirement to post \ _some \ _ warnings and \ _some \ _ information on \ _some \ _ products is a very good thing in \ _some \ _ cases .
eg : ingredients on food , and drugs , list of major side effects on drugs , Age min and small objects on toys,...Some may seem like an overkill , like " do n't drink if you want to be able to see and read this " on antifreeze.But we clearly should not put warnings against everyday small risks of using items .
Every item carries with it some risks .
You can choke on apples and fell of a bad .
Should they carry warnings ?
How about airplane tickets : " Boarding an airplane greatly increases your chances of getting communicable diseases " , " Flying in a plane increases you chances of falling down and hurting yourself " ... ?
Too many warnings and we will simply stop reading the labels.Warnings , like those on potential harm from holding cell phone to your ear for too many hours , belong in press reporting the research .
On the other hand ! !
! I 'd like to see warnings on the voting ballots : Voting and electing this person to a political office will likely cause irreparable harm to you and to the society.. .   -- Momus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A requirement to post \_some\_ warnings and \_some\_ information on \_some\_ products is a very good thing in \_some\_ cases.
eg: ingredients on food, and drugs, list of major side effects on drugs,  Age min and  small objects on toys,...Some may seem like an overkill, like  "don't drink if you want to be able to see and read this" on antifreeze.But we clearly should not put warnings against everyday small risks of using items.
Every item carries with it some risks.
You can choke on apples and fell of a bad.
Should they carry warnings?
How about airplane tickets:   "Boarding an airplane greatly increases your chances of getting communicable diseases" , " Flying in a plane increases you chances of falling down and hurting yourself"...?
Too many warnings and we will simply stop reading the labels.Warnings, like those on potential harm from holding cell phone to your ear for too many hours, belong in press reporting the research.
On the other hand!!
!I'd like to see warnings on the voting ballots:Voting and electing this person to a political office will likely cause irreparable harm to you and to the society...
  -- Momus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518730</id>
	<title>Cell phone health warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261402440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with putting a health warning on cell phones is the lack of scientific consensus on whether there is actually a hazard. This is very different from the situation with cigarettes, where there's a solid consensus in the medical field that says cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, etc..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with putting a health warning on cell phones is the lack of scientific consensus on whether there is actually a hazard .
This is very different from the situation with cigarettes , where there 's a solid consensus in the medical field that says cigarettes cause cancer , heart disease , etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with putting a health warning on cell phones is the lack of scientific consensus on whether there is actually a hazard.
This is very different from the situation with cigarettes, where there's a solid consensus in the medical field that says cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, etc..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515998</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1261386000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But people buy into it.  I want a warning label that voteing for this chowder head causes cancer. I have as much proof as he has. Same for the Mayor of SF.<br>Really people this is just too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But people buy into it .
I want a warning label that voteing for this chowder head causes cancer .
I have as much proof as he has .
Same for the Mayor of SF.Really people this is just too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But people buy into it.
I want a warning label that voteing for this chowder head causes cancer.
I have as much proof as he has.
Same for the Mayor of SF.Really people this is just too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</id>
	<title>Will this be covered by the public option?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up?  If I leave my job, will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage?</p><p>On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone.  So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio?  Here's a hint, Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth.  If I had to pick which antenna I'd rather have next to my head, it's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.</p><p>Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry, is there any actual independent science on this?  (There probably, is but I am far too lazy to Google).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up ?
If I leave my job , will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage ? On another topic , I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone .
So does this mean that Blue Tooth ( which is in the 2.4 GHz range ) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio ?
Here 's a hint , Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth .
If I had to pick which antenna I 'd rather have next to my head , it 's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry , is there any actual independent science on this ?
( There probably , is but I am far too lazy to Google ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up?
If I leave my job, will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage?On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone.
So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio?
Here's a hint, Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth.
If I had to pick which antenna I'd rather have next to my head, it's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry, is there any actual independent science on this?
(There probably, is but I am far too lazy to Google).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516748</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1261389720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a phone.  Take the battery out.  Hold it up to your head as though having a conversation on it.  Yes, you look funny.  Keep having your pretend conversation, for several minutes.  You don't actually need to talk, just hold that phone to the side of your head.</p><p>(a couple of minutes pass)</p><p>Okay, you can stop now.  The phone is warm.  What?  But it doesn't even have a battery in it!  How can this be?  Could it be that holding a small plastic box to the side of the part of your body that radiates the most head could actually... warm it up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a phone .
Take the battery out .
Hold it up to your head as though having a conversation on it .
Yes , you look funny .
Keep having your pretend conversation , for several minutes .
You do n't actually need to talk , just hold that phone to the side of your head .
( a couple of minutes pass ) Okay , you can stop now .
The phone is warm .
What ? But it does n't even have a battery in it !
How can this be ?
Could it be that holding a small plastic box to the side of the part of your body that radiates the most head could actually... warm it up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a phone.
Take the battery out.
Hold it up to your head as though having a conversation on it.
Yes, you look funny.
Keep having your pretend conversation, for several minutes.
You don't actually need to talk, just hold that phone to the side of your head.
(a couple of minutes pass)Okay, you can stop now.
The phone is warm.
What?  But it doesn't even have a battery in it!
How can this be?
Could it be that holding a small plastic box to the side of the part of your body that radiates the most head could actually... warm it up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517008</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261390920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing to understand is that most (any?) cancer risk is incremental and dependent on chronic exposure.  Time has yet to bear out what the real risks are, and research is ongoing.  That said, I do not see any reason why a warning should not be in place.  You have the right to know (at least in California) if you <i>might</i> be exposed to anything that <i>might</i> increase your incremental risk of cancer.  I like proposition 65, and I would vote for it again if it were passed in front of me.  There's no reason information regarding the possibility of the development of a chronic disease should be withheld from a consumer.  You should provide all of the available factual information, and let them decide if they want to possibly increase their incremental cancer risk by using a particular device.</p><p>As for background radiation, I concede that we absorb EMR constantly from many things around us.  That doesn't mean one shouldn't be provided the information to manage the risk, above baseline, that they may expose themselves to by day-to-day activities.  That's just what a responsible society does.  That said, I tend to put my cell phone in my pocket, next to my nads, and do not use a headset.  If any incremental risk is added, i've decided to take the stupid route and possibly effect not only my brain, but also my balls.  But that's my prerogative.  That's my decision based on what I know of RF and EMR, and I will admit that it might lead to some kind of cancer down the road.</p><p>So again, what's wrong with providing the information?  Are you afraid people will stop using cell phones?  Why do you care that much?  I doubt you work for the cell phone industry.  Does it represent a "nanny government"?  If that's the case, I think that's bullshit, too.  There are not propositions on the table to outlaw cell phones, just provide consumers with a datapoint to base decisions on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to understand is that most ( any ?
) cancer risk is incremental and dependent on chronic exposure .
Time has yet to bear out what the real risks are , and research is ongoing .
That said , I do not see any reason why a warning should not be in place .
You have the right to know ( at least in California ) if you might be exposed to anything that might increase your incremental risk of cancer .
I like proposition 65 , and I would vote for it again if it were passed in front of me .
There 's no reason information regarding the possibility of the development of a chronic disease should be withheld from a consumer .
You should provide all of the available factual information , and let them decide if they want to possibly increase their incremental cancer risk by using a particular device.As for background radiation , I concede that we absorb EMR constantly from many things around us .
That does n't mean one should n't be provided the information to manage the risk , above baseline , that they may expose themselves to by day-to-day activities .
That 's just what a responsible society does .
That said , I tend to put my cell phone in my pocket , next to my nads , and do not use a headset .
If any incremental risk is added , i 've decided to take the stupid route and possibly effect not only my brain , but also my balls .
But that 's my prerogative .
That 's my decision based on what I know of RF and EMR , and I will admit that it might lead to some kind of cancer down the road.So again , what 's wrong with providing the information ?
Are you afraid people will stop using cell phones ?
Why do you care that much ?
I doubt you work for the cell phone industry .
Does it represent a " nanny government " ?
If that 's the case , I think that 's bullshit , too .
There are not propositions on the table to outlaw cell phones , just provide consumers with a datapoint to base decisions on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to understand is that most (any?
) cancer risk is incremental and dependent on chronic exposure.
Time has yet to bear out what the real risks are, and research is ongoing.
That said, I do not see any reason why a warning should not be in place.
You have the right to know (at least in California) if you might be exposed to anything that might increase your incremental risk of cancer.
I like proposition 65, and I would vote for it again if it were passed in front of me.
There's no reason information regarding the possibility of the development of a chronic disease should be withheld from a consumer.
You should provide all of the available factual information, and let them decide if they want to possibly increase their incremental cancer risk by using a particular device.As for background radiation, I concede that we absorb EMR constantly from many things around us.
That doesn't mean one shouldn't be provided the information to manage the risk, above baseline, that they may expose themselves to by day-to-day activities.
That's just what a responsible society does.
That said, I tend to put my cell phone in my pocket, next to my nads, and do not use a headset.
If any incremental risk is added, i've decided to take the stupid route and possibly effect not only my brain, but also my balls.
But that's my prerogative.
That's my decision based on what I know of RF and EMR, and I will admit that it might lead to some kind of cancer down the road.So again, what's wrong with providing the information?
Are you afraid people will stop using cell phones?
Why do you care that much?
I doubt you work for the cell phone industry.
Does it represent a "nanny government"?
If that's the case, I think that's bullshit, too.
There are not propositions on the table to outlaw cell phones, just provide consumers with a datapoint to base decisions on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514366</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1261421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, since when are politicians logical, scientifically minded people?  This is not exactly the age of Realpolitik (in its original meaning of practical, realistic, and effective; rather than it's more recent meaning of coercive, heavy handed, and amoral).  The choices of our governments are based on religion, ideology, and vote pandering; much more so than they are based on what will actually accomplish our goals.</p><p>As an example, it has been shown several times that handing out needles to IV drug users not only reduces disease but also, in the long run, reduces the number of addicts (since the users are meeting with trained counselors on a weekly basic to get their needles).  Its even been shown to save money, since these users don't end up in the hospital later unable to pay their bills.  Yet, any area that tries to start a program of supplying needles is denigrated and attacked.  People say they are 'enabling' the users, when in fact their course of action has been shown effective in reducing drug use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , since when are politicians logical , scientifically minded people ?
This is not exactly the age of Realpolitik ( in its original meaning of practical , realistic , and effective ; rather than it 's more recent meaning of coercive , heavy handed , and amoral ) .
The choices of our governments are based on religion , ideology , and vote pandering ; much more so than they are based on what will actually accomplish our goals.As an example , it has been shown several times that handing out needles to IV drug users not only reduces disease but also , in the long run , reduces the number of addicts ( since the users are meeting with trained counselors on a weekly basic to get their needles ) .
Its even been shown to save money , since these users do n't end up in the hospital later unable to pay their bills .
Yet , any area that tries to start a program of supplying needles is denigrated and attacked .
People say they are 'enabling ' the users , when in fact their course of action has been shown effective in reducing drug use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, since when are politicians logical, scientifically minded people?
This is not exactly the age of Realpolitik (in its original meaning of practical, realistic, and effective; rather than it's more recent meaning of coercive, heavy handed, and amoral).
The choices of our governments are based on religion, ideology, and vote pandering; much more so than they are based on what will actually accomplish our goals.As an example, it has been shown several times that handing out needles to IV drug users not only reduces disease but also, in the long run, reduces the number of addicts (since the users are meeting with trained counselors on a weekly basic to get their needles).
Its even been shown to save money, since these users don't end up in the hospital later unable to pay their bills.
Yet, any area that tries to start a program of supplying needles is denigrated and attacked.
People say they are 'enabling' the users, when in fact their course of action has been shown effective in reducing drug use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518616</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mine merely acts as a bacon.<p>
Push button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine merely acts as a bacon .
Push button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine merely acts as a bacon.
Push button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514668</id>
	<title>Re:Will this be covered by the public option?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be concerned with the frequency of the output, but you should be concerned with power. The bluetooth headset only needs to transmit and receive data data over a small distance, maybe 3 feet. The cell phone needs to transmit and receive data over a much larger distance. That requires significantly more power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be concerned with the frequency of the output , but you should be concerned with power .
The bluetooth headset only needs to transmit and receive data data over a small distance , maybe 3 feet .
The cell phone needs to transmit and receive data over a much larger distance .
That requires significantly more power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be concerned with the frequency of the output, but you should be concerned with power.
The bluetooth headset only needs to transmit and receive data data over a small distance, maybe 3 feet.
The cell phone needs to transmit and receive data over a much larger distance.
That requires significantly more power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515098</id>
	<title>Re:Why not, works for global warming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261424820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy Trolly...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy Trolly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy Trolly...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514982</id>
	<title>Re:You always need to be first!</title>
	<author>Rozine</author>
	<datestamp>1261424340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I'm defending this idiocy, but...
<p>
Two equal camps, check.
</p><p>
Group all "current" scientists together, check.
</p><p>
Appeal to "reasonable folks" who want to find a "middle ground", check.
</p><p>
Can you push any more buttons from the anti-science and anti-evolution camp?  This is simple physics - non-ionizing radiation does not cause damage to DNA, period.  There is real research on this.  What more do you want?
</p><p>
The next time I hear someone appeal to the average man for authority in politics I'm going to go crazy.  If I wanted the idiot down the street making decisions for me I would have asked him myself.  I want people who have actually spent some time researching this to give me information, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm defending this idiocy , but.. . Two equal camps , check .
Group all " current " scientists together , check .
Appeal to " reasonable folks " who want to find a " middle ground " , check .
Can you push any more buttons from the anti-science and anti-evolution camp ?
This is simple physics - non-ionizing radiation does not cause damage to DNA , period .
There is real research on this .
What more do you want ?
The next time I hear someone appeal to the average man for authority in politics I 'm going to go crazy .
If I wanted the idiot down the street making decisions for me I would have asked him myself .
I want people who have actually spent some time researching this to give me information , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm defending this idiocy, but...

Two equal camps, check.
Group all "current" scientists together, check.
Appeal to "reasonable folks" who want to find a "middle ground", check.
Can you push any more buttons from the anti-science and anti-evolution camp?
This is simple physics - non-ionizing radiation does not cause damage to DNA, period.
There is real research on this.
What more do you want?
The next time I hear someone appeal to the average man for authority in politics I'm going to go crazy.
If I wanted the idiot down the street making decisions for me I would have asked him myself.
I want people who have actually spent some time researching this to give me information, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514430</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1261421940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!</p></div><p>Preferably, of brain cancer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the people who refuse to use science ( i.e .
Obser-fucking-vation ) to form policy , guide their actions , and make decisions , and would rather use tea leaves , bones , or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass , need to FUCKING DIE ! Preferably , of brain cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the people who refuse to use science (i.e.
Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!Preferably, of brain cancer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514926</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1261424160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're running safety training about equipment involving compressed gases and don't realize that we are always breathing 80\% nitrogen already?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're running safety training about equipment involving compressed gases and do n't realize that we are always breathing 80 \ % nitrogen already ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're running safety training about equipment involving compressed gases and don't realize that we are always breathing 80\% nitrogen already?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518626</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Posting AC for obvious reasons)</p><p><i>&gt; You take some regular household tinfoil (...)</i></p><p><i>It's a well-known fact that tinfoil production has been compromised by the American Military-Industrial Complex since 1975 worldwide; regular tinfoil won't do diddly-squat against their mind-reading and mind-control devices. The only hope you have is certified pre-1975 tinfoil of Swiss origin, although this has been kind of difficult to procure lately.</i></p><p><i>Now for the <i>real</i> shocker: Tooth fillings. They have teamed up with ~]"?a(\% </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Posting AC for obvious reasons ) &gt; You take some regular household tinfoil ( ... ) It 's a well-known fact that tinfoil production has been compromised by the American Military-Industrial Complex since 1975 worldwide ; regular tinfoil wo n't do diddly-squat against their mind-reading and mind-control devices .
The only hope you have is certified pre-1975 tinfoil of Swiss origin , although this has been kind of difficult to procure lately.Now for the real shocker : Tooth fillings .
They have teamed up with ~ ] " ? a ( \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Posting AC for obvious reasons)&gt; You take some regular household tinfoil (...)It's a well-known fact that tinfoil production has been compromised by the American Military-Industrial Complex since 1975 worldwide; regular tinfoil won't do diddly-squat against their mind-reading and mind-control devices.
The only hope you have is certified pre-1975 tinfoil of Swiss origin, although this has been kind of difficult to procure lately.Now for the real shocker: Tooth fillings.
They have teamed up with ~]"?a(\% </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517806</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1261395300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ionizing radiation increase your risk of cancer. Ionizing radiation screws up all kinds of stuff. Ionizing radiation gets inside your cells. <br>
<br>
Problem is, cell phone signals are *nowhere* near ionizing.<br>
<br>
Common sense does go a long way. But you have to have at least a basic grasp of the concepts involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ionizing radiation increase your risk of cancer .
Ionizing radiation screws up all kinds of stuff .
Ionizing radiation gets inside your cells .
Problem is , cell phone signals are * nowhere * near ionizing .
Common sense does go a long way .
But you have to have at least a basic grasp of the concepts involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ionizing radiation increase your risk of cancer.
Ionizing radiation screws up all kinds of stuff.
Ionizing radiation gets inside your cells.
Problem is, cell phone signals are *nowhere* near ionizing.
Common sense does go a long way.
But you have to have at least a basic grasp of the concepts involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516324</id>
	<title>Would anyone care?</title>
	<author>sampson7</author>
	<datestamp>1261387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't imagine any warning would end the love affair people have with their cell phones.  On the train.  On the plane.  Sitting on the can.  People are obsessed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine any warning would end the love affair people have with their cell phones .
On the train .
On the plane .
Sitting on the can .
People are obsessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine any warning would end the love affair people have with their cell phones.
On the train.
On the plane.
Sitting on the can.
People are obsessed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200</id>
	<title>Just like California</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1261420920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All over the place they have signs saying "This facility may or may not contain cancer causing chemicals".</p><p>May or May not. I'll tell ya, I HATE checking into a hotel and the first thing I see is one of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All over the place they have signs saying " This facility may or may not contain cancer causing chemicals " .May or May not .
I 'll tell ya , I HATE checking into a hotel and the first thing I see is one of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All over the place they have signs saying "This facility may or may not contain cancer causing chemicals".May or May not.
I'll tell ya, I HATE checking into a hotel and the first thing I see is one of those.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521750</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261476900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The big bang is still hitting us with EMR. The sun. Power lines. Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet. Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere. And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.</p></div></blockquote><p>And your cell phone is more powerful than all of those from the point of view of your body.  In almost every case, its in use and you are physically touching it.</p><p>Also, all radio signals are analog.  They may carry digital data on top of the signal, but all radio signals are analog.</p><p>You're worried about Cigarettes which have been studied for years, but you blow off cell phone concerns, which haven't even been around long enough to hold a valid study on, seems rather premature to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big bang is still hitting us with EMR .
The sun .
Power lines .
Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet .
Radio waves , analog and digital are everywhere .
And so you know , the powerlines do n't stop outside your house , they go in your house and all around your rooms , and when you 've got something on , the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.And your cell phone is more powerful than all of those from the point of view of your body .
In almost every case , its in use and you are physically touching it.Also , all radio signals are analog .
They may carry digital data on top of the signal , but all radio signals are analog.You 're worried about Cigarettes which have been studied for years , but you blow off cell phone concerns , which have n't even been around long enough to hold a valid study on , seems rather premature to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big bang is still hitting us with EMR.
The sun.
Power lines.
Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet.
Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere.
And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.And your cell phone is more powerful than all of those from the point of view of your body.
In almost every case, its in use and you are physically touching it.Also, all radio signals are analog.
They may carry digital data on top of the signal, but all radio signals are analog.You're worried about Cigarettes which have been studied for years, but you blow off cell phone concerns, which haven't even been around long enough to hold a valid study on, seems rather premature to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540</id>
	<title>Probably not a bad idea</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1261422420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There probably ought to be a warning. The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.<br> <br>
I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I'm very aware of how little power they radiate. It just didn't seem possible that it could affect cells, since it couldn't even change their temperature measurably. But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There probably ought to be a warning .
The evidence is inconclusive at this point , but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing , at the very least , changes in levels of certain proteins in cells , but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer .
I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised .
I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I 'm very aware of how little power they radiate .
It just did n't seem possible that it could affect cells , since it could n't even change their temperature measurably .
But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms , is leading me to believe that there is something very real there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There probably ought to be a warning.
The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.
I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised.
I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I'm very aware of how little power they radiate.
It just didn't seem possible that it could affect cells, since it couldn't even change their temperature measurably.
But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516084</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well put.</p><p>However, if in fact cell phones <b>DO</b> cause brain cancer, I'm honestly indifferent. I figure this planet has too many people all ready. Wiping out a couple 100 million would probably do us a service in the short, and the long run. I'm a progressive though, so my views are quite slanted.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tongue<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>//check</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well put.However , if in fact cell phones DO cause brain cancer , I 'm honestly indifferent .
I figure this planet has too many people all ready .
Wiping out a couple 100 million would probably do us a service in the short , and the long run .
I 'm a progressive though , so my views are quite slanted .
/tongue //check</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well put.However, if in fact cell phones DO cause brain cancer, I'm honestly indifferent.
I figure this planet has too many people all ready.
Wiping out a couple 100 million would probably do us a service in the short, and the long run.
I'm a progressive though, so my views are quite slanted.
/tongue //check</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515202</id>
	<title>The test</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1261425300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hypothesis: Cellphones give you the brain cancers.<br> <br>
Test of hypothesis: There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours, that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations. This, thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we're bathed in worldwide. We'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe, but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer, as a result of the characteristics here, such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head. <br> <br>
Results: There isn't any. Or if there is an effect, it's very very small, such that 'there isn't any' is still valid for all practical purposes. Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best, what few studies their are haven't showed anything worth more study, and we're a long way from any causal proof. Orders of magnitude smaller than gee, I don't know, exposure to actual chemical carcinogens, sunlight and bad lifestyle?
<br> <br>
(EMF could be carinogenic, I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer, due to the sheer energies involved, and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypothesis : Cellphones give you the brain cancers .
Test of hypothesis : There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours , that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations .
This , thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we 're bathed in worldwide .
We 'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe , but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer , as a result of the characteristics here , such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head .
Results : There is n't any .
Or if there is an effect , it 's very very small , such that 'there is n't any ' is still valid for all practical purposes .
Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best , what few studies their are have n't showed anything worth more study , and we 're a long way from any causal proof .
Orders of magnitude smaller than gee , I do n't know , exposure to actual chemical carcinogens , sunlight and bad lifestyle ?
( EMF could be carinogenic , I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer , due to the sheer energies involved , and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypothesis: Cellphones give you the brain cancers.
Test of hypothesis: There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours, that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations.
This, thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we're bathed in worldwide.
We'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe, but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer, as a result of the characteristics here, such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head.
Results: There isn't any.
Or if there is an effect, it's very very small, such that 'there isn't any' is still valid for all practical purposes.
Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best, what few studies their are haven't showed anything worth more study, and we're a long way from any causal proof.
Orders of magnitude smaller than gee, I don't know, exposure to actual chemical carcinogens, sunlight and bad lifestyle?
(EMF could be carinogenic, I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer, due to the sheer energies involved, and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514672</id>
	<title>Re:Will this be covered by the public option?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio?</p></div></blockquote><p>I heard that secret government labs were working on a special new kind of headset that uses on ordinary \_wire\_ to connect to a telephone.
</p><p>I can't imagine how they have solved all the problems of carrying complex audio signals through something as simple as a wire, but I still predict that this new, previously unheard of, "wirelessless" technology may catch on in a big way over the next twenty years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On another topic , I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone .
So does this mean that Blue Tooth ( which is in the 2.4 GHz range ) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio ? I heard that secret government labs were working on a special new kind of headset that uses on ordinary \ _wire \ _ to connect to a telephone .
I ca n't imagine how they have solved all the problems of carrying complex audio signals through something as simple as a wire , but I still predict that this new , previously unheard of , " wirelessless " technology may catch on in a big way over the next twenty years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone.
So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio?I heard that secret government labs were working on a special new kind of headset that uses on ordinary \_wire\_ to connect to a telephone.
I can't imagine how they have solved all the problems of carrying complex audio signals through something as simple as a wire, but I still predict that this new, previously unheard of, "wirelessless" technology may catch on in a big way over the next twenty years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514550</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1261422480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, those LN2 tanks DO present a danger that is worth warning about. But the warning isn't that "nitrogen may be present," obviously. The issue is that a leaky LN2 tank in an enclosed space may wind up making nitrogen the ONLY gas present, which is extremely hazardous. You can pass out without feeling anything abnormal in advance, and then quickly suffocate. Nitrogen asphyxiation has been advocated as an execution method for this very reason, in fact. Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago. The second tried to rescue the first without first understanding what went wrong, and then succumbed himself (if I am remembering the story properly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , those LN2 tanks DO present a danger that is worth warning about .
But the warning is n't that " nitrogen may be present , " obviously .
The issue is that a leaky LN2 tank in an enclosed space may wind up making nitrogen the ONLY gas present , which is extremely hazardous .
You can pass out without feeling anything abnormal in advance , and then quickly suffocate .
Nitrogen asphyxiation has been advocated as an execution method for this very reason , in fact .
Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago .
The second tried to rescue the first without first understanding what went wrong , and then succumbed himself ( if I am remembering the story properly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, those LN2 tanks DO present a danger that is worth warning about.
But the warning isn't that "nitrogen may be present," obviously.
The issue is that a leaky LN2 tank in an enclosed space may wind up making nitrogen the ONLY gas present, which is extremely hazardous.
You can pass out without feeling anything abnormal in advance, and then quickly suffocate.
Nitrogen asphyxiation has been advocated as an execution method for this very reason, in fact.
Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago.
The second tried to rescue the first without first understanding what went wrong, and then succumbed himself (if I am remembering the story properly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514868</id>
	<title>there is so much RF going through your body anyway</title>
	<author>scapermoya</author>
	<datestamp>1261423920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago. what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones? that you hold them to your head? anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?</htmltext>
<tokenext>if radio waves caused cancer , we would all have been dead a long time ago .
what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones ?
that you hold them to your head ?
anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago.
what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones?
that you hold them to your head?
anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517494</id>
	<title>Telephone sanitizers</title>
	<author>LeadSongDog</author>
	<datestamp>1261393440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mock them now, but for how long?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mock them now , but for how long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mock them now, but for how long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517506</id>
	<title>Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1261393500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I would suggest cell phones are dangerous, but Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker. <br> <br>

Cell phones don&rsquo;t produce dangerous radiation and they produce extremely small amounts of heat energy in the form of radio waves that might heat up a 154 pound person 1/100th of a degrees Celsius after an hour of absorbing 1 watt (which is unlikely to be that high) of radio wave energy from a cell phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I would suggest cell phones are dangerous , but Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker .
Cell phones don    t produce dangerous radiation and they produce extremely small amounts of heat energy in the form of radio waves that might heat up a 154 pound person 1/100th of a degrees Celsius after an hour of absorbing 1 watt ( which is unlikely to be that high ) of radio wave energy from a cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I would suggest cell phones are dangerous, but Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker.
Cell phones don’t produce dangerous radiation and they produce extremely small amounts of heat energy in the form of radio waves that might heat up a 154 pound person 1/100th of a degrees Celsius after an hour of absorbing 1 watt (which is unlikely to be that high) of radio wave energy from a cell phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261390380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a warning that "Jumping to conclusions makes you look stupid!"</p><p>Does a cell phone emit radiation?  Yes.  Does radiation cause cancer?  Almost certainly yes.  Need examples of other handheld devices causing cancer in situations similar to those in which cell phones are used?</p><p>Google for testicular cancer among police.  Cops with radar guns, sitting in the confines of a car, often lay that damned gun on their lap while talking on the radio, or driving.  A radiation emitting device laying on your balls is quite likely to do strange things to your ball cells.</p><p>Now, extrapolate.  Do you REALLY want to hold that damned cell phone up to your ear?  How many hours per day are you willing to hold it there?</p><p>I'll pass, thank you very much.  No, I don't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer.  Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a warning that " Jumping to conclusions makes you look stupid !
" Does a cell phone emit radiation ?
Yes. Does radiation cause cancer ?
Almost certainly yes .
Need examples of other handheld devices causing cancer in situations similar to those in which cell phones are used ? Google for testicular cancer among police .
Cops with radar guns , sitting in the confines of a car , often lay that damned gun on their lap while talking on the radio , or driving .
A radiation emitting device laying on your balls is quite likely to do strange things to your ball cells.Now , extrapolate .
Do you REALLY want to hold that damned cell phone up to your ear ?
How many hours per day are you willing to hold it there ? I 'll pass , thank you very much .
No , I do n't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer .
Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a warning that "Jumping to conclusions makes you look stupid!
"Does a cell phone emit radiation?
Yes.  Does radiation cause cancer?
Almost certainly yes.
Need examples of other handheld devices causing cancer in situations similar to those in which cell phones are used?Google for testicular cancer among police.
Cops with radar guns, sitting in the confines of a car, often lay that damned gun on their lap while talking on the radio, or driving.
A radiation emitting device laying on your balls is quite likely to do strange things to your ball cells.Now, extrapolate.
Do you REALLY want to hold that damned cell phone up to your ear?
How many hours per day are you willing to hold it there?I'll pass, thank you very much.
No, I don't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer.
Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517996</id>
	<title>cellphones and cancer</title>
	<author>t3chn0n3rd</author>
	<datestamp>1261396560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>do cellphones cause cancer</htmltext>
<tokenext>do cellphones cause cancer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do cellphones cause cancer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514614</id>
	<title>Does nobody read &#198;sop's Fables anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261422780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop crying wolf and making warnings meaningless!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop crying wolf and making warnings meaningless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop crying wolf and making warnings meaningless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518912</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261403880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515870</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1261428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a poor wording, but that's a very important warning. The presence of LN2 tanks presents a significant asphyxiation risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a poor wording , but that 's a very important warning .
The presence of LN2 tanks presents a significant asphyxiation risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a poor wording, but that's a very important warning.
The presence of LN2 tanks presents a significant asphyxiation risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515348</id>
	<title>Re:Great more according to the state of whatever</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261425900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We're all going to die one day. Whether it is by cancer, car accident, or natural causes I don't care.</i></p><p>There's more to dying than just death. Cancer is a <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/222855" title="slashdot.org">horrible way to go.</a> [slashdot.org] OTOH my ex-mother in law just <i>stopped</i> in mid sentence of heart failure. Not a bad way to go at all.</p><p>I'm not afraid of death, but I hate pain. I woudn't want to die in a car wreck <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/9/103055/252" title="kuro5hin.org">again</a> [kuro5hin.org], either. That hurts like hell, and due to the time dialation a few seconds isn't just a long time, it's <i>the rest of your life</i>.</p><p>I want to be shot by a jealous lover, on the upstroke, at age 105!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all going to die one day .
Whether it is by cancer , car accident , or natural causes I do n't care.There 's more to dying than just death .
Cancer is a horrible way to go .
[ slashdot.org ] OTOH my ex-mother in law just stopped in mid sentence of heart failure .
Not a bad way to go at all.I 'm not afraid of death , but I hate pain .
I woud n't want to die in a car wreck again [ kuro5hin.org ] , either .
That hurts like hell , and due to the time dialation a few seconds is n't just a long time , it 's the rest of your life.I want to be shot by a jealous lover , on the upstroke , at age 105 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all going to die one day.
Whether it is by cancer, car accident, or natural causes I don't care.There's more to dying than just death.
Cancer is a horrible way to go.
[slashdot.org] OTOH my ex-mother in law just stopped in mid sentence of heart failure.
Not a bad way to go at all.I'm not afraid of death, but I hate pain.
I woudn't want to die in a car wreck again [kuro5hin.org], either.
That hurts like hell, and due to the time dialation a few seconds isn't just a long time, it's the rest of your life.I want to be shot by a jealous lover, on the upstroke, at age 105!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517820</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1261395360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But there has been a lot of science done and it shows that there is little or no correlation. So I imagine it isn't as obvious as you think.<br> <br>This is a perfect example of an is-ought fallacy or a naturalistic fallacy:<br>"I don't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer. Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way."<br> <br> <b>Science trumps common sense.</b> If it didn't the earth would likely still be the center of the universe. And anything at the subatomic scale would probably just be left as 'magic'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there has been a lot of science done and it shows that there is little or no correlation .
So I imagine it is n't as obvious as you think .
This is a perfect example of an is-ought fallacy or a naturalistic fallacy : " I do n't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer .
Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way .
" Science trumps common sense .
If it did n't the earth would likely still be the center of the universe .
And anything at the subatomic scale would probably just be left as 'magic' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there has been a lot of science done and it shows that there is little or no correlation.
So I imagine it isn't as obvious as you think.
This is a perfect example of an is-ought fallacy or a naturalistic fallacy:"I don't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer.
Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way.
"  Science trumps common sense.
If it didn't the earth would likely still be the center of the universe.
And anything at the subatomic scale would probably just be left as 'magic'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514792</id>
	<title>Please Mr. Government Man, Protect us!!!!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1261423500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More warnings for everything, It won't be a truly safe place to live until everything in existence has yellow warning labels....</p><p>Warning, walking may lead to falling.</p><p>Warning, eating may lead to obesity.</p><p>Warning, living may lead to death.</p><p>Warning, thinking happy thoughts now may lead to bad thoughts later.</p><p>Warning, life is dangerous, not worth living, please report to you government sponsored "permanent relaxation center" for treatment....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More warnings for everything , It wo n't be a truly safe place to live until everything in existence has yellow warning labels....Warning , walking may lead to falling.Warning , eating may lead to obesity.Warning , living may lead to death.Warning , thinking happy thoughts now may lead to bad thoughts later.Warning , life is dangerous , not worth living , please report to you government sponsored " permanent relaxation center " for treatment... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More warnings for everything, It won't be a truly safe place to live until everything in existence has yellow warning labels....Warning, walking may lead to falling.Warning, eating may lead to obesity.Warning, living may lead to death.Warning, thinking happy thoughts now may lead to bad thoughts later.Warning, life is dangerous, not worth living, please report to you government sponsored "permanent relaxation center" for treatment....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514724</id>
	<title>Re:Will this be covered by the public option?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bluetooth headsets have orders of magnitude lower radiated power than cellphones. They probably still influence the matter from which your head is composed much less, even if frequency is more conductive for heating (cellphones do that to)</p><p>Not that it makes a difference anyway; at least BT headsets are more comfortable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth headsets have orders of magnitude lower radiated power than cellphones .
They probably still influence the matter from which your head is composed much less , even if frequency is more conductive for heating ( cellphones do that to ) Not that it makes a difference anyway ; at least BT headsets are more comfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth headsets have orders of magnitude lower radiated power than cellphones.
They probably still influence the matter from which your head is composed much less, even if frequency is more conductive for heating (cellphones do that to)Not that it makes a difference anyway; at least BT headsets are more comfortable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</id>
	<title>insanity</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1261420860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists don't agree, no real studies confirm the notion, and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm'. Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists do n't agree , no real studies confirm the notion , and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm' .
Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists don't agree, no real studies confirm the notion, and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm'.
Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517308</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261392480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but that's what you WANT us to believe!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but that 's what you WANT us to believe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but that's what you WANT us to believe!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515064</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well hey, Linda used a cell phone and she died of cancer! Funny how a cell phone can cause a cancer on your gall bladder...</p><p>TFA said something about studies showing a link, but I haven't read about any of those studies. The ones I've read about showed no correlation at all. Odd that TFA mentioned studies showing a link but didn't point to a single one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well hey , Linda used a cell phone and she died of cancer !
Funny how a cell phone can cause a cancer on your gall bladder...TFA said something about studies showing a link , but I have n't read about any of those studies .
The ones I 've read about showed no correlation at all .
Odd that TFA mentioned studies showing a link but did n't point to a single one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well hey, Linda used a cell phone and she died of cancer!
Funny how a cell phone can cause a cancer on your gall bladder...TFA said something about studies showing a link, but I haven't read about any of those studies.
The ones I've read about showed no correlation at all.
Odd that TFA mentioned studies showing a link but didn't point to a single one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515188</id>
	<title>Too many warnings</title>
	<author>Explodicle</author>
	<datestamp>1261425240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone. If it's small enough, I dare say we should have no warnings anyways. Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks.</p><p>"So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me? It's just another pointless government thing, like with cell phones."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone .
If it 's small enough , I dare say we should have no warnings anyways .
Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks .
" So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me ?
It 's just another pointless government thing , like with cell phones .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone.
If it's small enough, I dare say we should have no warnings anyways.
Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks.
"So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me?
It's just another pointless government thing, like with cell phones.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516578</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1261388760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An ammendment to the bill requires a second tattoo, explaining the dangers of cancer associated with tattooing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An ammendment to the bill requires a second tattoo , explaining the dangers of cancer associated with tattooing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ammendment to the bill requires a second tattoo, explaining the dangers of cancer associated with tattooing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516998</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261390800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know how GPS works, and it DOES emit a signal. It doesn't emit its longitude or latitude, I know. It merely acts as a beacon, and if a GPS Satellite has it within it's range, It does it's best to calculate its distance from you in signal strength. If enough Satellites have you within range, they use the strength of the signal and their own relative positioning to calculate where you are. Thing of it like a Ven Diagram which overlaps, but also has the complexit of 3D space.</p><p>Point is, my comment above Whooshed so fast over your head your ears are still ringing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know how GPS works , and it DOES emit a signal .
It does n't emit its longitude or latitude , I know .
It merely acts as a beacon , and if a GPS Satellite has it within it 's range , It does it 's best to calculate its distance from you in signal strength .
If enough Satellites have you within range , they use the strength of the signal and their own relative positioning to calculate where you are .
Thing of it like a Ven Diagram which overlaps , but also has the complexit of 3D space.Point is , my comment above Whooshed so fast over your head your ears are still ringing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know how GPS works, and it DOES emit a signal.
It doesn't emit its longitude or latitude, I know.
It merely acts as a beacon, and if a GPS Satellite has it within it's range, It does it's best to calculate its distance from you in signal strength.
If enough Satellites have you within range, they use the strength of the signal and their own relative positioning to calculate where you are.
Thing of it like a Ven Diagram which overlaps, but also has the complexit of 3D space.Point is, my comment above Whooshed so fast over your head your ears are still ringing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515266</id>
	<title>Re:Probably not a bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261425540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>care to cite the studies? only study I've seen showed that over 20 years of cellphone usage by danes there was no significant link to brain cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>care to cite the studies ?
only study I 've seen showed that over 20 years of cellphone usage by danes there was no significant link to brain cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>care to cite the studies?
only study I've seen showed that over 20 years of cellphone usage by danes there was no significant link to brain cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517590</id>
	<title>Re:You always need to be first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.</p><p>The truth does not always lie in the middle ground. I think that *always* looking for the middle ground shows<br>a terrible weakness of character. There are many many situations in which compromise is called for but this<br>is not one of them. People have a tendency to have crazy unjustifiable fears. Name any kind of phobia and<br>someone has it, say fear of ghosts for example. Trying to find middle ground with people who have these<br>fears or the rat bastards that prey on these fears is wrong. Science is our candle in the darkness. There<br>have been studies done including an enormous study by Denmark that show no link between cell phone<br>usage and cancer. As for that grand-daddy of epistemological cop outs that you "cannot prove a<br>negative." It may be true in an absolute philosophical sense but you can be as damn sure  as is possible<br>in this world and letting infinitesimal remnants of unreasonable doubt determine ones actions is a fools game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There has to be some middle ground somewhere , where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.The truth does not always lie in the middle ground .
I think that * always * looking for the middle ground showsa terrible weakness of character .
There are many many situations in which compromise is called for but thisis not one of them .
People have a tendency to have crazy unjustifiable fears .
Name any kind of phobia andsomeone has it , say fear of ghosts for example .
Trying to find middle ground with people who have thesefears or the rat bastards that prey on these fears is wrong .
Science is our candle in the darkness .
Therehave been studies done including an enormous study by Denmark that show no link between cell phoneusage and cancer .
As for that grand-daddy of epistemological cop outs that you " can not prove anegative .
" It may be true in an absolute philosophical sense but you can be as damn sure as is possiblein this world and letting infinitesimal remnants of unreasonable doubt determine ones actions is a fools game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.The truth does not always lie in the middle ground.
I think that *always* looking for the middle ground showsa terrible weakness of character.
There are many many situations in which compromise is called for but thisis not one of them.
People have a tendency to have crazy unjustifiable fears.
Name any kind of phobia andsomeone has it, say fear of ghosts for example.
Trying to find middle ground with people who have thesefears or the rat bastards that prey on these fears is wrong.
Science is our candle in the darkness.
Therehave been studies done including an enormous study by Denmark that show no link between cell phoneusage and cancer.
As for that grand-daddy of epistemological cop outs that you "cannot prove anegative.
" It may be true in an absolute philosophical sense but you can be as damn sure  as is possiblein this world and letting infinitesimal remnants of unreasonable doubt determine ones actions is a fools game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515594</id>
	<title>Re:No proof?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261427100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correlation != causation.</p><p>More study would be needed to determine this.  Myself, I'd postulate the opposite: brain damage causes people to talk on the cellphone, particularly in annoying ways and at inappropriate times.</p><p>Even more research is needed to try and find the causation of the condition known as "texting".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correlation ! = causation.More study would be needed to determine this .
Myself , I 'd postulate the opposite : brain damage causes people to talk on the cellphone , particularly in annoying ways and at inappropriate times.Even more research is needed to try and find the causation of the condition known as " texting " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correlation != causation.More study would be needed to determine this.
Myself, I'd postulate the opposite: brain damage causes people to talk on the cellphone, particularly in annoying ways and at inappropriate times.Even more research is needed to try and find the causation of the condition known as "texting".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514196</id>
	<title>Warning message...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about, a warning message before and after the call</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about , a warning message before and after the call</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about, a warning message before and after the call</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514262</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1261421280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correction...<p><div class="quote"><p>being ruled <b>by</b> malicious</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction...being ruled by malicious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction...being ruled by malicious
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514532</id>
	<title>What a joke</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1261422420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves.</p><p>Feel free to let her know how you feel.</p><p><a href="http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm" title="maine.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm</a> [maine.gov] [maine.gov]</p><p>Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073</p><p>Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459</p><p>Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459</p><p>Fax: (207) 324-1627</p><p>State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov</p><p>Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland<br>(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)</p><p>State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900</p><p>State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance , I 'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves.Feel free to let her know how you feel.http : //www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [ maine.gov ] [ maine.gov ] Address : 22 Kent Street , Sanford , ME 04073Home Telephone : ( 207 ) 324-4459Business Telephone : ( 207 ) 324-4459Fax : ( 207 ) 324-1627State House E-Mail : RepAndrea.Boland @ legislature.maine.govLegislative Web Site : www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland ( Additional information , news , etc. , from the House Majority Office ) State House Message Phone : ( 800 ) 423-2900State House TTY Line : ( 207 ) 287-4469</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves.Feel free to let her know how you feel.http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [maine.gov] [maine.gov]Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459Fax: (207) 324-1627State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.govLegislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521856</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 year study<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for devices that have only really be popular and provided a large enough dataset to study for 10-15 years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Yea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wheres the science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 year study ... for devices that have only really be popular and provided a large enough dataset to study for 10-15 years ...Yea ... wheres the science .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 year study ... for devices that have only really be popular and provided a large enough dataset to study for 10-15 years ...Yea ... wheres the science ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515014</id>
	<title>Re:Probably not a bad idea</title>
	<author>klaun</author>
	<datestamp>1261424520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I don't want to be dismissive of this claim, but given the number of studies you mentioned, it would have been useful to reference some.
</p><p>
I'd particularly be interested in how a study measures cell phone effects on protein levels in the cells of the brain.  Also, you mention that they damage neurons.  However, over 85\% of malignant brain tumors arise from glial cells or cancers of other non-neural cells in the brain.
</p><p>
I myself am aware of studies that show non-ionizing, non-thermal radiation can affect DNA replication.  (Sorry can't find a reference.)  But from what I've read, it had not been linked to any pathology and the studies were strictly limited to examining cell cultures, not entire organisms.
</p><blockquote><div><p>But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The National Cancer institute <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#6" title="cancer.gov">links</a> [cancer.gov] to several studies that at best are inconclusive on any link and for the most part seem to conclude that there is no link.  Where are the sheer numbers of studies that you are refering to?
</p><p>
I'm not sure what the numerous cellular mechanism you are referring to is either.  We are talking strictly cancer, right?  So in general we are only concerned with replication and transcription of DNA, correct?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing , at the very least , changes in levels of certain proteins in cells , but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer .
I do n't want to be dismissive of this claim , but given the number of studies you mentioned , it would have been useful to reference some .
I 'd particularly be interested in how a study measures cell phone effects on protein levels in the cells of the brain .
Also , you mention that they damage neurons .
However , over 85 \ % of malignant brain tumors arise from glial cells or cancers of other non-neural cells in the brain .
I myself am aware of studies that show non-ionizing , non-thermal radiation can affect DNA replication .
( Sorry ca n't find a reference .
) But from what I 've read , it had not been linked to any pathology and the studies were strictly limited to examining cell cultures , not entire organisms .
But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms , is leading me to believe that there is something very real there .
The National Cancer institute links [ cancer.gov ] to several studies that at best are inconclusive on any link and for the most part seem to conclude that there is no link .
Where are the sheer numbers of studies that you are refering to ?
I 'm not sure what the numerous cellular mechanism you are referring to is either .
We are talking strictly cancer , right ?
So in general we are only concerned with replication and transcription of DNA , correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.
I don't want to be dismissive of this claim, but given the number of studies you mentioned, it would have been useful to reference some.
I'd particularly be interested in how a study measures cell phone effects on protein levels in the cells of the brain.
Also, you mention that they damage neurons.
However, over 85\% of malignant brain tumors arise from glial cells or cancers of other non-neural cells in the brain.
I myself am aware of studies that show non-ionizing, non-thermal radiation can affect DNA replication.
(Sorry can't find a reference.
)  But from what I've read, it had not been linked to any pathology and the studies were strictly limited to examining cell cultures, not entire organisms.
But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.
The National Cancer institute links [cancer.gov] to several studies that at best are inconclusive on any link and for the most part seem to conclude that there is no link.
Where are the sheer numbers of studies that you are refering to?
I'm not sure what the numerous cellular mechanism you are referring to is either.
We are talking strictly cancer, right?
So in general we are only concerned with replication and transcription of DNA, correct?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30527374</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1261513740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people's brains aren't worth saving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people 's brains are n't worth saving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people's brains aren't worth saving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514396</id>
	<title>What a joke</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1261421760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves it.

Feel free to let her know how you feel.

<a href="http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm" title="maine.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm</a> [maine.gov]

Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073

Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459

Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459

Fax: (207) 324-1627

State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov

Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland
(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)

State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900

State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance , I 'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves it .
Feel free to let her know how you feel .
http : //www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [ maine.gov ] Address : 22 Kent Street , Sanford , ME 04073 Home Telephone : ( 207 ) 324-4459 Business Telephone : ( 207 ) 324-4459 Fax : ( 207 ) 324-1627 State House E-Mail : RepAndrea.Boland @ legislature.maine.gov Legislative Web Site : www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland ( Additional information , news , etc. , from the House Majority Office ) State House Message Phone : ( 800 ) 423-2900 State House TTY Line : ( 207 ) 287-4469</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves it.
Feel free to let her know how you feel.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [maine.gov]

Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073

Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459

Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459

Fax: (207) 324-1627

State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov

Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland
(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)

State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900

State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518722</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>dilvish\_the\_damned</author>
	<datestamp>1261402380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> If enough Satellites have you within range, they use the strength of the signal and their own relative positioning to calculate where you are. Thing of it like a Ven Diagram which overlaps, but also has the complexit of 3D space.</i></p><p>I think maybe you have your Numb3rs confused. GPS satellites simply don't give a shit where you are. Its your <a href="http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017157862" title="allheadlinenews.com">Sprints</a> [allheadlinenews.com] that track you, not your Magellans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If enough Satellites have you within range , they use the strength of the signal and their own relative positioning to calculate where you are .
Thing of it like a Ven Diagram which overlaps , but also has the complexit of 3D space.I think maybe you have your Numb3rs confused .
GPS satellites simply do n't give a shit where you are .
Its your Sprints [ allheadlinenews.com ] that track you , not your Magellans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If enough Satellites have you within range, they use the strength of the signal and their own relative positioning to calculate where you are.
Thing of it like a Ven Diagram which overlaps, but also has the complexit of 3D space.I think maybe you have your Numb3rs confused.
GPS satellites simply don't give a shit where you are.
Its your Sprints [allheadlinenews.com] that track you, not your Magellans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514404</id>
	<title>San Francisco</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1261421880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a lovely place to visit, but I am glad I don't have to pay taxes there.</p><p>So what do they want the warnings to say? "Warning, this cell phone may or may not cause cancer?" Didn't they already pass prop 65 to say that damn near everything may or may not cause cancer? Honesty - the last time I went the movies there was a prop 65 warning on the door.</p><p>They seriously need to stop crying wolf^wcancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lovely place to visit , but I am glad I do n't have to pay taxes there.So what do they want the warnings to say ?
" Warning , this cell phone may or may not cause cancer ?
" Did n't they already pass prop 65 to say that damn near everything may or may not cause cancer ?
Honesty - the last time I went the movies there was a prop 65 warning on the door.They seriously need to stop crying wolf ^ wcancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a lovely place to visit, but I am glad I don't have to pay taxes there.So what do they want the warnings to say?
"Warning, this cell phone may or may not cause cancer?
" Didn't they already pass prop 65 to say that damn near everything may or may not cause cancer?
Honesty - the last time I went the movies there was a prop 65 warning on the door.They seriously need to stop crying wolf^wcancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518824</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>DurendalMac</author>
	<datestamp>1261403220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better turn all the lights off and hide in a lead-lined cave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better turn all the lights off and hide in a lead-lined cave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better turn all the lights off and hide in a lead-lined cave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518276</id>
	<title>Blood pressure warning for politicians</title>
	<author>rcpitt</author>
	<datestamp>1261398420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be applied with non-removeable glue (same kind as that wonderful notice about air bags on my car's visor) over the orafice just below the nose.
<p>
Alternative placement is just above and to the rear of the thighs (left or right cheek - or both) - since we need to kiss this area to get any recognition - we'll be sure to see the warning.
</p><p>
Anyone dealing with politicians should be aware that such dealing can lead to high blood pressure and potential stroke or other medical condition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be applied with non-removeable glue ( same kind as that wonderful notice about air bags on my car 's visor ) over the orafice just below the nose .
Alternative placement is just above and to the rear of the thighs ( left or right cheek - or both ) - since we need to kiss this area to get any recognition - we 'll be sure to see the warning .
Anyone dealing with politicians should be aware that such dealing can lead to high blood pressure and potential stroke or other medical condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be applied with non-removeable glue (same kind as that wonderful notice about air bags on my car's visor) over the orafice just below the nose.
Alternative placement is just above and to the rear of the thighs (left or right cheek - or both) - since we need to kiss this area to get any recognition - we'll be sure to see the warning.
Anyone dealing with politicians should be aware that such dealing can lead to high blood pressure and potential stroke or other medical condition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514178</id>
	<title>That whole city needs a warning label</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1261420860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gots teh crazy.</p><p>I tease.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>But, seriously, Gavin's a tool. He should go back to the Love Boat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gots teh crazy.I tease .
: ) But , seriously , Gavin 's a tool .
He should go back to the Love Boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gots teh crazy.I tease.
:)But, seriously, Gavin's a tool.
He should go back to the Love Boat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519950</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Roogna</author>
	<datestamp>1261411980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>You know, I'd almost buy into this one.  Have you gone outside and actually talked to other people in the past few years?  I'd say the number of people per "decade" age range that are dumb as bricks increases astronomically once you reach age ranges that have always drank fluoridated water.  Perhaps making people stupid is really a secret mind control plot.</p><p>Of course, correlation != causation, they could just be dumb as bricks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... " Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug " warnings .
.You know , I 'd almost buy into this one .
Have you gone outside and actually talked to other people in the past few years ?
I 'd say the number of people per " decade " age range that are dumb as bricks increases astronomically once you reach age ranges that have always drank fluoridated water .
Perhaps making people stupid is really a secret mind control plot.Of course , correlation ! = causation , they could just be dumb as bricks .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
.You know, I'd almost buy into this one.
Have you gone outside and actually talked to other people in the past few years?
I'd say the number of people per "decade" age range that are dumb as bricks increases astronomically once you reach age ranges that have always drank fluoridated water.
Perhaps making people stupid is really a secret mind control plot.Of course, correlation != causation, they could just be dumb as bricks.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1261421280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key.  Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air".  This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one of the facilities where I work , I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key .
Included in the training was a note that there " may be nitrogen present in the air " .
This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement , but it 's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key.
Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air".
This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518640</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1261401180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree. A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.</p></div><p>That's because the studies are stupid.</p><p>I remember reading a study saying that cancer rates were identical in a town with tons of nasty pollution spewing pulp mills.</p><p>However, everyone I know that used to live in that town(and moved away because of the stench) died of cancer in their 50's or 60's. Everyone I know that knows people from there also knows people that died of cancer. These people that moved away bump up the cancer rates in other locations, and lower it there, because they no longer live there.</p><p>Same thing with cell phones. If you've always used a cellphone, you've had constant exposure, which raises your odds of random mutations and ultimately brain cancer. Also keep in mind the power output of the cell. Older cellphones had badass transmitters and huge antenna on them, so in the past the odds of them causing cancer was quite high. (though still hard to prove)</p><p>Also, it's not rocket science. My opinion is cellphones cause cancer... as does getting too much sunlight, too little sunlight, going on a plane, eating foods you can't properly digest, lacking trace minerals(these are important for stuff like proper cell duplication), etc.</p><p>Really, there isn't much you can do that doesn't cause cancer. The question is, do cellphones affect it significantly? Smoking raises the odds of getting lung cancer hugely. If you don't die of something else, you'll get lung cancer eventually. Is a cellphone a big risk? That's for you to decide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
A search for published science ( from university library resources ) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.That 's because the studies are stupid.I remember reading a study saying that cancer rates were identical in a town with tons of nasty pollution spewing pulp mills.However , everyone I know that used to live in that town ( and moved away because of the stench ) died of cancer in their 50 's or 60 's .
Everyone I know that knows people from there also knows people that died of cancer .
These people that moved away bump up the cancer rates in other locations , and lower it there , because they no longer live there.Same thing with cell phones .
If you 've always used a cellphone , you 've had constant exposure , which raises your odds of random mutations and ultimately brain cancer .
Also keep in mind the power output of the cell .
Older cellphones had badass transmitters and huge antenna on them , so in the past the odds of them causing cancer was quite high .
( though still hard to prove ) Also , it 's not rocket science .
My opinion is cellphones cause cancer... as does getting too much sunlight , too little sunlight , going on a plane , eating foods you ca n't properly digest , lacking trace minerals ( these are important for stuff like proper cell duplication ) , etc.Really , there is n't much you can do that does n't cause cancer .
The question is , do cellphones affect it significantly ?
Smoking raises the odds of getting lung cancer hugely .
If you do n't die of something else , you 'll get lung cancer eventually .
Is a cellphone a big risk ?
That 's for you to decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.That's because the studies are stupid.I remember reading a study saying that cancer rates were identical in a town with tons of nasty pollution spewing pulp mills.However, everyone I know that used to live in that town(and moved away because of the stench) died of cancer in their 50's or 60's.
Everyone I know that knows people from there also knows people that died of cancer.
These people that moved away bump up the cancer rates in other locations, and lower it there, because they no longer live there.Same thing with cell phones.
If you've always used a cellphone, you've had constant exposure, which raises your odds of random mutations and ultimately brain cancer.
Also keep in mind the power output of the cell.
Older cellphones had badass transmitters and huge antenna on them, so in the past the odds of them causing cancer was quite high.
(though still hard to prove)Also, it's not rocket science.
My opinion is cellphones cause cancer... as does getting too much sunlight, too little sunlight, going on a plane, eating foods you can't properly digest, lacking trace minerals(these are important for stuff like proper cell duplication), etc.Really, there isn't much you can do that doesn't cause cancer.
The question is, do cellphones affect it significantly?
Smoking raises the odds of getting lung cancer hugely.
If you don't die of something else, you'll get lung cancer eventually.
Is a cellphone a big risk?
That's for you to decide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514514</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1261422360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this legislator is really saying is that he doesn't have anything better to do to justify his presence on the payroll. In these tough economic times useless asses like this should be given the boot, so that the money can go to somebody who can do something that is actually productive and useful. (Not just the cost of his salary, imagine the cost of implementation of this thing.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this legislator is really saying is that he does n't have anything better to do to justify his presence on the payroll .
In these tough economic times useless asses like this should be given the boot , so that the money can go to somebody who can do something that is actually productive and useful .
( Not just the cost of his salary , imagine the cost of implementation of this thing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this legislator is really saying is that he doesn't have anything better to do to justify his presence on the payroll.
In these tough economic times useless asses like this should be given the boot, so that the money can go to somebody who can do something that is actually productive and useful.
(Not just the cost of his salary, imagine the cost of implementation of this thing.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514268</id>
	<title>The first</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1261421340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads.  By next year, you'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads .
By next year , you 'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads.
By next year, you'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515516</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1261426800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that true of all people on government? All of the laws that we really need were written hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that true of all people on government ?
All of the laws that we really need were written hundreds , if not thousands , of years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that true of all people on government?
All of the laws that we really need were written hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515482</id>
	<title>www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons\_us.p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261426560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there is.</p><p>Initial Endorsers (from 14 countries):</p><p>USA Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University<br>USA David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany<br>USA Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute<br>USA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy Consultant<br>USA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, University of Washington<br>USA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs<br>USA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, American 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 Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society<br>USA Bert Schou, PhD, CEO, ACRES Research<br>USA Narendra P. Singh, Research Associate Professor, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington<br>USA Morton M. Teich, MD, Physician, New York, NY, Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine</p><p>And:</p><p>Australia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of 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 Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, State Government Salzburg and<br>Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association, Vienna<br>Brazil Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul- UFRGS<br>Canada Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental<br>Medicine; CEO, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic<br>Canada Joe Foster, 29 year member of the International Association of Fire Fighters<br>Finland Mikko Ahonen, MSc, Researcher, University of Tampere<br>Finland Osmo H&#228;nninen, PhD, Professor in Physiology (Emer.), University of Kuopio<br>France Daniel Oberhausen, Physicist, Association PRIART&#201;M<br>Germany Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Dr.med., Executive Director and Member of the Board of the VerUm Foundation, Foundation for Behaviour and Environment; Germany<br>Germany Christine Aschermann, Dr. med., Psychiatry, Psychotherapy. Originator of Doctors&rsquo; Appeal (2002 Freiburg Appeal)<br>Germany Horst Eger, Dr med., Bavarian &#196;rztekammer Medical Quality No. 65143:<br>"Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin - Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt"<br>Germany Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med, General Practitioner; Initiator of the Bamberg Appeal (2005)<br>Germany Ulrich Warnke, Dr. rer. nat., Academic High Councilor, Biosciences, University of Saarland<br>Greece Adamantia Fragopoulou, MSc, Medical Biology, PhD (cand.), Electromagnetic Biology Research Group, Athens University<br>Greece Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept. of<br>Cell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology, University of Athens<br>Greece Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society<br>Ireland Con Colbert, Association Secretary, Irish Doctors Environmental Association<br>Ireland Senator Mark Daly, National Parliament, Republic of Ireland<br>Russia Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-<br>Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of WHO International Advisory Committee on "EMF and Health"<br>Spain Alfonso Balmori, PhD, Biologist, Researcher on effects of electromagnetic fields on wildlife<br>Sweden &#214;rjan Hallberg, MSEE, Hallberg Independent Research<br>UK Mike Bell, Lawyer, Trustee, Radiation Research Trust (RRT)<br>UK Ian Dring, PhD, Independent Consultant Scientist<br>UK Gill Evans, M.Phil, Member of European Parliament for Wales Plaid Cymru<br>UK Ian Gibson, PhD, biologist and geneticist, cancer researcher, ex-senior M.P. and<br>Chair of Sci</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is.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 Cancer InstituteUSA Elizabeth A. Kelley , MA , Environmental and Public Policy ConsultantUSA Henry Lai , PhD , Research Professor , Dept .
of Bioengineering , University of WashingtonUSA Jerry L. Phillips , PhD , Director , Science Learning Center , University of Colorado at Colorado SpringsUSA Lawrence A. Plumlee , MD , Editor , The Environmental Physician , American Academy of Environmental MedicineUSA Paul J. Rosch , MD , FACP , Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry , NewYork Medical College ; President , The American Institute of Stress ; Emeritus Member , 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 , American Academy of Environmental MedicineAnd : Australia Vini G. Khurana , MBBS , BSc ( Med ) , PhD , FRACS , Associate Professor of Neurosurgery , 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 Oberfeld , MD , Public Health Department , State Government Salzburg andSpeaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association , ViennaBrazil Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles , PhD , Professor , Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul- UFRGSCanada Jennifer Armstrong , MD , Member , American Academy of EnvironmentalMedicine ; CEO , Ottawa Environmental Health ClinicCanada Joe Foster , 29 year member of the International Association of Fire FightersFinland Mikko Ahonen , MSc , Researcher , University of TampereFinland Osmo H   nninen , PhD , Professor in Physiology ( Emer .
) , University of KuopioFrance Daniel Oberhausen , Physicist , Association PRIART   MGermany Prof. Franz Adlkofer , Dr.med. , Executive Director and Member of the Board of the VerUm Foundation , Foundation for Behaviour and Environment ; GermanyGermany Christine Aschermann , Dr .
med. , Psychiatry , Psychotherapy .
Originator of Doctors    Appeal ( 2002 Freiburg Appeal ) Germany Horst Eger , Dr med. , Bavarian   rztekammer Medical Quality No .
65143 : " Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin - Diagnostik , Therapie , Umwelt " Germany Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam , Dr.med , General Practitioner ; Initiator of the Bamberg Appeal ( 2005 ) Germany Ulrich Warnke , Dr. rer. nat. , Academic High Councilor , Biosciences , University of SaarlandGreece Adamantia Fragopoulou , MSc , Medical Biology , PhD ( cand .
) , Electromagnetic Biology Research Group , Athens UniversityGreece Lukas H. Margaritis , PhD , Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology , Dept .
ofCell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology , University of AthensGreece Stelios A Zinelis , MD , Hellenic Cancer SocietyIreland Con Colbert , Association Secretary , Irish Doctors Environmental AssociationIreland Senator Mark Daly , National Parliament , Republic of IrelandRussia Professor Yury Grigoriev , Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection , a member of WHO International Advisory Committee on " EMF and Health " Spain Alfonso Balmori , PhD , Biologist , Researcher on effects of electromagnetic fields on wildlifeSweden   rjan Hallberg , MSEE , Hallberg Independent ResearchUK Mike Bell , Lawyer , Trustee , Radiation Research Trust ( RRT ) UK Ian Dring , PhD , Independent Consultant ScientistUK Gill Evans , M.Phil , Member of European Parliament for Wales Plaid CymruUK Ian Gibson , PhD , biologist and geneticist , cancer researcher , ex-senior M.P .
andChair of Sci</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is.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 Cancer InstituteUSA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy ConsultantUSA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept.
of Bioengineering, University of WashingtonUSA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado at Colorado SpringsUSA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, American Academy of Environmental MedicineUSA Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, NewYork Medical College; President, The American Institute of Stress; Emeritus Member, 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, American Academy of Environmental MedicineAnd:Australia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of Neurosurgery, 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 Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, State Government Salzburg andSpeaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association, ViennaBrazil Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul- UFRGSCanada Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Member, American Academy of EnvironmentalMedicine; CEO, Ottawa Environmental Health ClinicCanada Joe Foster, 29 year member of the International Association of Fire FightersFinland Mikko Ahonen, MSc, Researcher, University of TampereFinland Osmo Hänninen, PhD, Professor in Physiology (Emer.
), University of KuopioFrance Daniel Oberhausen, Physicist, Association PRIARTÉMGermany Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Dr.med., Executive Director and Member of the Board of the VerUm Foundation, Foundation for Behaviour and Environment; GermanyGermany Christine Aschermann, Dr.
med., Psychiatry, Psychotherapy.
Originator of Doctors’ Appeal (2002 Freiburg Appeal)Germany Horst Eger, Dr med., Bavarian Ärztekammer Medical Quality No.
65143:"Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin - Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt"Germany Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med, General Practitioner; Initiator of the Bamberg Appeal (2005)Germany Ulrich Warnke, Dr. rer. nat., Academic High Councilor, Biosciences, University of SaarlandGreece Adamantia Fragopoulou, MSc, Medical Biology, PhD (cand.
), Electromagnetic Biology Research Group, Athens UniversityGreece Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept.
ofCell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology, University of AthensGreece Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer SocietyIreland Con Colbert, Association Secretary, Irish Doctors Environmental AssociationIreland Senator Mark Daly, National Parliament, Republic of IrelandRussia Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of WHO International Advisory Committee on "EMF and Health"Spain Alfonso Balmori, PhD, Biologist, Researcher on effects of electromagnetic fields on wildlifeSweden Örjan Hallberg, MSEE, Hallberg Independent ResearchUK Mike Bell, Lawyer, Trustee, Radiation Research Trust (RRT)UK Ian Dring, PhD, Independent Consultant ScientistUK Gill Evans, M.Phil, Member of European Parliament for Wales Plaid CymruUK Ian Gibson, PhD, biologist and geneticist, cancer researcher, ex-senior M.P.
andChair of Sci</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514884</id>
	<title>Consensus is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHAT&rsquo;S NEW   Robert L. Park    Friday, 13 Nov 09   Washington, DC</p><p>BRAIN CANCER: OF COURSE CELL PHONES ARE DANGEROUS!<br>Cell phones may lead to neural atrophy as mindless chatter is substituted<br>for coherent information, but they don't cause brain cancer.  This week,<br>however, a doctoral thesis at a university in Sweden suggested that cell<br>phones are linked to some brain cancers.  It went around the world in<br>Science Daily on Wednesday. This imaginary link is "discovered" about every<br>five years or so.  Photons induce cancer by the photoelectric effect,<br>breaking chemical bonds and creating mutant strands of DNA.  In 2001, I was<br>invited to write an editorial on cell phone hazards for the Journal of the<br>National Cancer Institute (JNCI, Vol. 93, Feb 7, 2001, p. 166).  I pointed<br>out that the photoelectric effect would require photon energies at the<br>extreme blue end of the visible spectrum, which is why it's the ultraviolet<br>rays in sunlight that cause skin cancer.  Microwave photons are about<br>10,000 times less energetic. In a classic 2001 op-ed, LBL physicist Robert<br>Cahn observed that Albert Einstein discovered in 1905 that microwaves<br>couldn't cause cancer.  The cell phone scare was launched in 1993 on the<br>Larry King Live Show, which is not peer reviewed.  It almost strangled the<br>infant cell-phone industry in its crib, but researchers found nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT    S NEW Robert L. Park Friday , 13 Nov 09 Washington , DCBRAIN CANCER : OF COURSE CELL PHONES ARE DANGEROUS ! Cell phones may lead to neural atrophy as mindless chatter is substitutedfor coherent information , but they do n't cause brain cancer .
This week,however , a doctoral thesis at a university in Sweden suggested that cellphones are linked to some brain cancers .
It went around the world inScience Daily on Wednesday .
This imaginary link is " discovered " about everyfive years or so .
Photons induce cancer by the photoelectric effect,breaking chemical bonds and creating mutant strands of DNA .
In 2001 , I wasinvited to write an editorial on cell phone hazards for the Journal of theNational Cancer Institute ( JNCI , Vol .
93 , Feb 7 , 2001 , p. 166 ) . I pointedout that the photoelectric effect would require photon energies at theextreme blue end of the visible spectrum , which is why it 's the ultravioletrays in sunlight that cause skin cancer .
Microwave photons are about10,000 times less energetic .
In a classic 2001 op-ed , LBL physicist RobertCahn observed that Albert Einstein discovered in 1905 that microwavescould n't cause cancer .
The cell phone scare was launched in 1993 on theLarry King Live Show , which is not peer reviewed .
It almost strangled theinfant cell-phone industry in its crib , but researchers found nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT’S NEW   Robert L. Park    Friday, 13 Nov 09   Washington, DCBRAIN CANCER: OF COURSE CELL PHONES ARE DANGEROUS!Cell phones may lead to neural atrophy as mindless chatter is substitutedfor coherent information, but they don't cause brain cancer.
This week,however, a doctoral thesis at a university in Sweden suggested that cellphones are linked to some brain cancers.
It went around the world inScience Daily on Wednesday.
This imaginary link is "discovered" about everyfive years or so.
Photons induce cancer by the photoelectric effect,breaking chemical bonds and creating mutant strands of DNA.
In 2001, I wasinvited to write an editorial on cell phone hazards for the Journal of theNational Cancer Institute (JNCI, Vol.
93, Feb 7, 2001, p. 166).  I pointedout that the photoelectric effect would require photon energies at theextreme blue end of the visible spectrum, which is why it's the ultravioletrays in sunlight that cause skin cancer.
Microwave photons are about10,000 times less energetic.
In a classic 2001 op-ed, LBL physicist RobertCahn observed that Albert Einstein discovered in 1905 that microwavescouldn't cause cancer.
The cell phone scare was launched in 1993 on theLarry King Live Show, which is not peer reviewed.
It almost strangled theinfant cell-phone industry in its crib, but researchers found nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518618</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, well, opening a text document and typing in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" will annoy them a lot <b>if</b> they are indeed watching. So does setting up a web cam with reliable motion detection and send images of intruders to several email accounts. Oh, and while we're at it: Sealing your PC's case in a way that it cannot be broken by accident but needs to be broken when it is opened and making sure the seal is not easy to fake will be very annoying, too. Of course, this only works when your really being watched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , well , opening a text document and typing in " I KNOW YOU 'RE WATCHING " will annoy them a lot if they are indeed watching .
So does setting up a web cam with reliable motion detection and send images of intruders to several email accounts .
Oh , and while we 're at it : Sealing your PC 's case in a way that it can not be broken by accident but needs to be broken when it is opened and making sure the seal is not easy to fake will be very annoying , too .
Of course , this only works when your really being watched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, well, opening a text document and typing in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" will annoy them a lot if they are indeed watching.
So does setting up a web cam with reliable motion detection and send images of intruders to several email accounts.
Oh, and while we're at it: Sealing your PC's case in a way that it cannot be broken by accident but needs to be broken when it is opened and making sure the seal is not easy to fake will be very annoying, too.
Of course, this only works when your really being watched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can prove that Cell phones cause cancer because they are always emitting their GPS signals to the government, and they can remotely activate the voice input on your phone to listen to what you are saying. Luckily, I've got a free open source non-patentable method of keeping them out. You take some regular household tinfoil, and you wrap it around your head, so that it nicely rests on the ears. Make sure you get everything North of your eyebrows covered, and all the way around to the strange marking on that back of your neck from that one night you were abducted. (For those not abducted, just cover the entirety of your neck, to be safe).</p><p>Next, you need to take your passport and stick it in the Microwave, because the government put an RFID in there, to keep track of what terrorist states you are visiting. While you're in the kitchen, get a water filter, but not Brita, that is clearly alluding to England which is a close friend to the United States Government. Make sure you filter your water twice, and possibly even Distill it to make sure any and all drugs in the water are not present.</p><p>You should start a garden in your basement and grow some wheat (not outside! They'll see your crops on Google and poison them!). You can then turn that wheat into your own flour and use your own non-contaminated water to make dough, which you can then turn into a wide variety of foods.</p><p>Last but not least, every time you use your computer, make sure to open a text document and type in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" so that the FBI/CIA/Military Industrial Complex knows that you know and won't bother watching you. Follow these simple steps and you too can free yourself from the insanity that oppresses the sheeple into doing the corporations bidding. Maybe one day we'll rise against the new world order together, and take back what is rightfully ours **(I don't know what that is yet, but when I figure it out I'll let you know.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can prove that Cell phones cause cancer because they are always emitting their GPS signals to the government , and they can remotely activate the voice input on your phone to listen to what you are saying .
Luckily , I 've got a free open source non-patentable method of keeping them out .
You take some regular household tinfoil , and you wrap it around your head , so that it nicely rests on the ears .
Make sure you get everything North of your eyebrows covered , and all the way around to the strange marking on that back of your neck from that one night you were abducted .
( For those not abducted , just cover the entirety of your neck , to be safe ) .Next , you need to take your passport and stick it in the Microwave , because the government put an RFID in there , to keep track of what terrorist states you are visiting .
While you 're in the kitchen , get a water filter , but not Brita , that is clearly alluding to England which is a close friend to the United States Government .
Make sure you filter your water twice , and possibly even Distill it to make sure any and all drugs in the water are not present.You should start a garden in your basement and grow some wheat ( not outside !
They 'll see your crops on Google and poison them ! ) .
You can then turn that wheat into your own flour and use your own non-contaminated water to make dough , which you can then turn into a wide variety of foods.Last but not least , every time you use your computer , make sure to open a text document and type in " I KNOW YOU 'RE WATCHING " so that the FBI/CIA/Military Industrial Complex knows that you know and wo n't bother watching you .
Follow these simple steps and you too can free yourself from the insanity that oppresses the sheeple into doing the corporations bidding .
Maybe one day we 'll rise against the new world order together , and take back what is rightfully ours * * ( I do n't know what that is yet , but when I figure it out I 'll let you know .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can prove that Cell phones cause cancer because they are always emitting their GPS signals to the government, and they can remotely activate the voice input on your phone to listen to what you are saying.
Luckily, I've got a free open source non-patentable method of keeping them out.
You take some regular household tinfoil, and you wrap it around your head, so that it nicely rests on the ears.
Make sure you get everything North of your eyebrows covered, and all the way around to the strange marking on that back of your neck from that one night you were abducted.
(For those not abducted, just cover the entirety of your neck, to be safe).Next, you need to take your passport and stick it in the Microwave, because the government put an RFID in there, to keep track of what terrorist states you are visiting.
While you're in the kitchen, get a water filter, but not Brita, that is clearly alluding to England which is a close friend to the United States Government.
Make sure you filter your water twice, and possibly even Distill it to make sure any and all drugs in the water are not present.You should start a garden in your basement and grow some wheat (not outside!
They'll see your crops on Google and poison them!).
You can then turn that wheat into your own flour and use your own non-contaminated water to make dough, which you can then turn into a wide variety of foods.Last but not least, every time you use your computer, make sure to open a text document and type in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" so that the FBI/CIA/Military Industrial Complex knows that you know and won't bother watching you.
Follow these simple steps and you too can free yourself from the insanity that oppresses the sheeple into doing the corporations bidding.
Maybe one day we'll rise against the new world order together, and take back what is rightfully ours **(I don't know what that is yet, but when I figure it out I'll let you know.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514432</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>moichido</author>
	<datestamp>1261422000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FLASH: 2015 California - The legislature has finally enabled legislation to have all infants tattooed with a warning on their wrists that states: "WARNING: Life may or may not be hazardous to your health". Proponents of the bill are ecstatic: "We have protected the children and they will not forget the warning even into adulthood."</htmltext>
<tokenext>FLASH : 2015 California - The legislature has finally enabled legislation to have all infants tattooed with a warning on their wrists that states : " WARNING : Life may or may not be hazardous to your health " .
Proponents of the bill are ecstatic : " We have protected the children and they will not forget the warning even into adulthood .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FLASH: 2015 California - The legislature has finally enabled legislation to have all infants tattooed with a warning on their wrists that states: "WARNING: Life may or may not be hazardous to your health".
Proponents of the bill are ecstatic: "We have protected the children and they will not forget the warning even into adulthood.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</id>
	<title>the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.<br> <br>Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.<br> <br>They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.<br> <br>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself .
Next will be the " Vaccines cause Autism " warnings , the " Aspartame makes you Fat " warnings and the " Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug " warnings .
They really should have a " Politics makes you a fuckhead " warning .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.
Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514994</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1261424460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're taking cues from the global warming alarmists.</p><p>SHOW US THE DATA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're taking cues from the global warming alarmists.SHOW US THE DATA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're taking cues from the global warming alarmists.SHOW US THE DATA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517864</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1261395600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brita is a German company though, it is named after a little German girl. The rest seems sensible though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brita is a German company though , it is named after a little German girl .
The rest seems sensible though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brita is a German company though, it is named after a little German girl.
The rest seems sensible though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514836</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261423680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the labs at my workplace carries a warning that... [gasp!]... there may be oxygen present.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the labs at my workplace carries a warning that.. .
[ gasp ! ] ... there may be oxygen present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the labs at my workplace carries a warning that...
[gasp!]... there may be oxygen present.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516640</id>
	<title>Doing these things without any proof...</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1261389180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they get this one without proof, how long until they start forcing others without proof.<br><br>Before long, every male will be labeled as a sex offender, every food will warn of cancer or other health issues, every politician will have a scarlet letter, etc...<br><br>Stop the insanity now by stopping this grandstanding moron on a soap box.<br>Then get him and his cronies kicked out of office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they get this one without proof , how long until they start forcing others without proof.Before long , every male will be labeled as a sex offender , every food will warn of cancer or other health issues , every politician will have a scarlet letter , etc...Stop the insanity now by stopping this grandstanding moron on a soap box.Then get him and his cronies kicked out of office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they get this one without proof, how long until they start forcing others without proof.Before long, every male will be labeled as a sex offender, every food will warn of cancer or other health issues, every politician will have a scarlet letter, etc...Stop the insanity now by stopping this grandstanding moron on a soap box.Then get him and his cronies kicked out of office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514298</id>
	<title>What's the point about a cancer warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when no one can afford racketeering heath care industry in<br>Amerika?</p><p>Yours In Novosibirsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when no one can afford racketeering heath care industry inAmerika ? Yours In Novosibirsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when no one can afford racketeering heath care industry inAmerika?Yours In Novosibirsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30527632</id>
	<title>nonsense</title>
	<author>JumpSocial</author>
	<datestamp>1261514580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a lot more warnings they should be working on before they should be putting warnings of stuff that isn't proven.

They should warn not to drive using a cell phone. I'm sure there are people who actually are killed from than.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot more warnings they should be working on before they should be putting warnings of stuff that is n't proven .
They should warn not to drive using a cell phone .
I 'm sure there are people who actually are killed from than .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot more warnings they should be working on before they should be putting warnings of stuff that isn't proven.
They should warn not to drive using a cell phone.
I'm sure there are people who actually are killed from than.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516460</id>
	<title>just a thought...</title>
	<author>logicassasin</author>
	<datestamp>1261388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but didn't the tobacco industry tell us for years that smoking poses no cancer risk?</p><p>For this reason, I'll remain skeptical about a position of denial taken by an industry that stands to lose billions should a link between their product and harm caused to the general public be found.</p><p>For the record, I don't support either stance yet, but I do remember the old-school phones from the late 80's to early 90's being differentiated by power and proximity to a person for safety reasons (I sold phones from 1990 to 1996 in a car audio shop). IIRC, ratings were<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.6W for hand-held phones, 1.3W for transportables (bag phones), and a full 3W for phones mounted in-car, with the tranciever, ideally, located in the trunk of the car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but did n't the tobacco industry tell us for years that smoking poses no cancer risk ? For this reason , I 'll remain skeptical about a position of denial taken by an industry that stands to lose billions should a link between their product and harm caused to the general public be found.For the record , I do n't support either stance yet , but I do remember the old-school phones from the late 80 's to early 90 's being differentiated by power and proximity to a person for safety reasons ( I sold phones from 1990 to 1996 in a car audio shop ) .
IIRC , ratings were .6W for hand-held phones , 1.3W for transportables ( bag phones ) , and a full 3W for phones mounted in-car , with the tranciever , ideally , located in the trunk of the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but didn't the tobacco industry tell us for years that smoking poses no cancer risk?For this reason, I'll remain skeptical about a position of denial taken by an industry that stands to lose billions should a link between their product and harm caused to the general public be found.For the record, I don't support either stance yet, but I do remember the old-school phones from the late 80's to early 90's being differentiated by power and proximity to a person for safety reasons (I sold phones from 1990 to 1996 in a car audio shop).
IIRC, ratings were .6W for hand-held phones, 1.3W for transportables (bag phones), and a full 3W for phones mounted in-car, with the tranciever, ideally, located in the trunk of the car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515932</id>
	<title>Re: But thats the people thats the cancer</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1261428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not cell phones causing the cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not cell phones causing the cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not cell phones causing the cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514650</id>
	<title>Why not, works for global warming?</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1261422960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone here he says this is a stupid idea, and that global warming is CAUSED by man is a hypocrite.</p><p>Of course global warming is effected by man.  And every other damn thing on the planet, both in positive and negative ways.  To the point that chaos theory says that every time a butterfly farts the world warms a little.  But it works the other way to.</p><p>And, considering that plants LIKE CO2 and the world is overall GREENER than it was 50 year ago, who's to say warming wouldn't be a good thing?  Oh yeah, people who stand to get rich selling carbon credits (gore) and idiots who built their homes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3ft above sea level.</p><p>So, think about it, what's the REAL reason someone's trying to push a cell phone label?  Is there a huge LABEL MAKING industry in Maine?  Is there a company there trying to come out with a EM FREE cell phone?  Or is this guy about to start selling EM credits to offset your cell phone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone here he says this is a stupid idea , and that global warming is CAUSED by man is a hypocrite.Of course global warming is effected by man .
And every other damn thing on the planet , both in positive and negative ways .
To the point that chaos theory says that every time a butterfly farts the world warms a little .
But it works the other way to.And , considering that plants LIKE CO2 and the world is overall GREENER than it was 50 year ago , who 's to say warming would n't be a good thing ?
Oh yeah , people who stand to get rich selling carbon credits ( gore ) and idiots who built their homes .3ft above sea level.So , think about it , what 's the REAL reason someone 's trying to push a cell phone label ?
Is there a huge LABEL MAKING industry in Maine ?
Is there a company there trying to come out with a EM FREE cell phone ?
Or is this guy about to start selling EM credits to offset your cell phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone here he says this is a stupid idea, and that global warming is CAUSED by man is a hypocrite.Of course global warming is effected by man.
And every other damn thing on the planet, both in positive and negative ways.
To the point that chaos theory says that every time a butterfly farts the world warms a little.
But it works the other way to.And, considering that plants LIKE CO2 and the world is overall GREENER than it was 50 year ago, who's to say warming wouldn't be a good thing?
Oh yeah, people who stand to get rich selling carbon credits (gore) and idiots who built their homes .3ft above sea level.So, think about it, what's the REAL reason someone's trying to push a cell phone label?
Is there a huge LABEL MAKING industry in Maine?
Is there a company there trying to come out with a EM FREE cell phone?
Or is this guy about to start selling EM credits to offset your cell phone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515798</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find your ideas intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

(I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find your ideas intriguing , and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter .
( I KNOW YOU 'RE WATCHING )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find your ideas intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515024</id>
	<title>Hey Gavin, two words for you</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1261424520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <strong>non-ionozing radiation.</strong> </p><p>I know that's probably a concept that's way over your head, but before you fuckheads start running your mouths, perhaps some basic understanding of electromagnetic radiation is in order?  Or would that diffuse your sensationalistic cause?</p><p>Stupid shits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>non-ionozing radiation .
I know that 's probably a concept that 's way over your head , but before you fuckheads start running your mouths , perhaps some basic understanding of electromagnetic radiation is in order ?
Or would that diffuse your sensationalistic cause ? Stupid shits</tokentext>
<sentencetext> non-ionozing radiation.
I know that's probably a concept that's way over your head, but before you fuckheads start running your mouths, perhaps some basic understanding of electromagnetic radiation is in order?
Or would that diffuse your sensationalistic cause?Stupid shits</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514450</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>Iyonesco</author>
	<datestamp>1261422060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was from a book of ridiculous exam answers in UK exams:</p><p><a href="http://i45.tinypic.com/eqp46d.jpg" title="tinypic.com" rel="nofollow">http://i45.tinypic.com/eqp46d.jpg</a> [tinypic.com]</p><p>What shocked me was not the answer but the question.  It seems the UK government doesn't care about investigation or evidence and simply takes the stance that "the science is decided".  If anyone questioned this they would no doubt just employ some "scientists" to manipulate the data and backup their per-conceived assumptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was from a book of ridiculous exam answers in UK exams : http : //i45.tinypic.com/eqp46d.jpg [ tinypic.com ] What shocked me was not the answer but the question .
It seems the UK government does n't care about investigation or evidence and simply takes the stance that " the science is decided " .
If anyone questioned this they would no doubt just employ some " scientists " to manipulate the data and backup their per-conceived assumptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was from a book of ridiculous exam answers in UK exams:http://i45.tinypic.com/eqp46d.jpg [tinypic.com]What shocked me was not the answer but the question.
It seems the UK government doesn't care about investigation or evidence and simply takes the stance that "the science is decided".
If anyone questioned this they would no doubt just employ some "scientists" to manipulate the data and backup their per-conceived assumptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30523638</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1261497360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The taxpayers in the UK are funding a personal homeopathic "doctor" for the royal family.  I think when it comes to science, you should look at anything BUT the government in England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The taxpayers in the UK are funding a personal homeopathic " doctor " for the royal family .
I think when it comes to science , you should look at anything BUT the government in England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The taxpayers in the UK are funding a personal homeopathic "doctor" for the royal family.
I think when it comes to science, you should look at anything BUT the government in England.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514382</id>
	<title>Job for UN</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1261421760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>UN should set up a body to study the issue and reach a consensus.  We must save the brains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UN should set up a body to study the issue and reach a consensus .
We must save the brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UN should set up a body to study the issue and reach a consensus.
We must save the brains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516176</id>
	<title>Re:Will this be covered by the public option?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microwave ovens are powerful devices for warming food because they create a standing wave inside the oven to agitate the water molecules. Using the same frequencies does not mean your head becomes an oven container that'll create standing waves. Actually, in your case, they probably would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microwave ovens are powerful devices for warming food because they create a standing wave inside the oven to agitate the water molecules .
Using the same frequencies does not mean your head becomes an oven container that 'll create standing waves .
Actually , in your case , they probably would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microwave ovens are powerful devices for warming food because they create a standing wave inside the oven to agitate the water molecules.
Using the same frequencies does not mean your head becomes an oven container that'll create standing waves.
Actually, in your case, they probably would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514484</id>
	<title>WARNING: Living may be hazerdous to your health</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261422180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subject says it all, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject says it all , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject says it all, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515908</id>
	<title>I wouldn't be so quick to follow SF</title>
	<author>renimar</author>
	<datestamp>1261428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Bay Area resident who's seen Newsom's "management" of San Francisco, I don't know that I'd be so quick to follow Newsom's lead.  Not to mention that he has a history of making big annoucements... and <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/06/local/me-newsom6?pg=2" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">failing to follow through.</a> [latimes.com]</p><p>This isn't even a policy agenda that can be argued from a moral or social perspective -- it's based on erroneous beliefs with no scientific backing whatsoever.  Not to mention that there are already agencies who test every damn cell phone when it comes out.  Sounds to me like there's already legislation (albeit at the federal level) to handle this should cell phones prove to be brain cookers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Bay Area resident who 's seen Newsom 's " management " of San Francisco , I do n't know that I 'd be so quick to follow Newsom 's lead .
Not to mention that he has a history of making big annoucements... and failing to follow through .
[ latimes.com ] This is n't even a policy agenda that can be argued from a moral or social perspective -- it 's based on erroneous beliefs with no scientific backing whatsoever .
Not to mention that there are already agencies who test every damn cell phone when it comes out .
Sounds to me like there 's already legislation ( albeit at the federal level ) to handle this should cell phones prove to be brain cookers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Bay Area resident who's seen Newsom's "management" of San Francisco, I don't know that I'd be so quick to follow Newsom's lead.
Not to mention that he has a history of making big annoucements... and failing to follow through.
[latimes.com]This isn't even a policy agenda that can be argued from a moral or social perspective -- it's based on erroneous beliefs with no scientific backing whatsoever.
Not to mention that there are already agencies who test every damn cell phone when it comes out.
Sounds to me like there's already legislation (albeit at the federal level) to handle this should cell phones prove to be brain cookers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514392</id>
	<title>What makes cell phones more dangerous?</title>
	<author>Jimmy King</author>
	<datestamp>1261421760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses, computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work, etc?<br><br>Of course, I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't clearly some fear mongering asshole (who may not believe what they are saying themselves) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we 've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses , computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work , etc ? Of course , I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it 's nearly impossible to find a source that is n't clearly some fear mongering asshole ( who may not believe what they are saying themselves ) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses, computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work, etc?Of course, I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't clearly some fear mongering asshole (who may not believe what they are saying themselves) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514438</id>
	<title>Great more according to the state of whatever</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1261422000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see it now, "According to the State of Maine, this device may cause cancer. " We're all going to die one day. Whether it is by cancer, car accident, or natural causes I don't care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see it now , " According to the State of Maine , this device may cause cancer .
" We 're all going to die one day .
Whether it is by cancer , car accident , or natural causes I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see it now, "According to the State of Maine, this device may cause cancer.
" We're all going to die one day.
Whether it is by cancer, car accident, or natural causes I don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514424</id>
	<title>Constipation...</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1261421940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear vibrating cell phones can also cause constipation if they end up in someone's butt.  Where is the warning for that??</p><p>It's a million to one shot, Doc. A million to one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear vibrating cell phones can also cause constipation if they end up in someone 's butt .
Where is the warning for that ?
? It 's a million to one shot , Doc .
A million to one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear vibrating cell phones can also cause constipation if they end up in someone's butt.
Where is the warning for that?
?It's a million to one shot, Doc.
A million to one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514726</id>
	<title>fuck A 8are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Own lube, beveraQ6e, wasn't on Steve's</htmltext>
<tokenext>Own lube , beveraQ6e , was n't on Steve 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Own lube, beveraQ6e, wasn't on Steve's</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516308</id>
	<title>and....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what. They can put all the warnings they want, who cares...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what .
They can put all the warnings they want , who cares.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what.
They can put all the warnings they want, who cares...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514804</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>OrangeMonkey11</author>
	<datestamp>1261423500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very nice HMROTF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very nice HMROTF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very nice HMROTF</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514594</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1261422720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be "her"self in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be " her " self in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be "her"self in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516032</id>
	<title>There's nothing new about this</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1261386180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean US courts have already said that if you merely <i>think</i> something is making you sick that's a good enough standard to sue for losses. (Scientific evidence be damned.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean US courts have already said that if you merely think something is making you sick that 's a good enough standard to sue for losses .
( Scientific evidence be damned .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean US courts have already said that if you merely think something is making you sick that's a good enough standard to sue for losses.
(Scientific evidence be damned.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516192</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1261386900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Palm Springs, there is an <a href="http://www.pstramway.com/" title="pstramway.com">Aerial Tram</a> [pstramway.com] that takes you up to the mountains.  It's breathtakingly beautiful.  I was listening to the recording of the tour guide telling you to take a deep breath of the clean mountain air.  Next to the speaker, is one of those signs saying that something around you can cause cancer.  Totally ironic that one of the the cleanest places on the planet isn't considered safe.  That law went way too far.</p><p>Oh, and the signs are everywhere because of cleaning solutions.  If you DON'T see a sign, be concerned - they probably aren't cleaning the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Palm Springs , there is an Aerial Tram [ pstramway.com ] that takes you up to the mountains .
It 's breathtakingly beautiful .
I was listening to the recording of the tour guide telling you to take a deep breath of the clean mountain air .
Next to the speaker , is one of those signs saying that something around you can cause cancer .
Totally ironic that one of the the cleanest places on the planet is n't considered safe .
That law went way too far.Oh , and the signs are everywhere because of cleaning solutions .
If you DO N'T see a sign , be concerned - they probably are n't cleaning the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Palm Springs, there is an Aerial Tram [pstramway.com] that takes you up to the mountains.
It's breathtakingly beautiful.
I was listening to the recording of the tour guide telling you to take a deep breath of the clean mountain air.
Next to the speaker, is one of those signs saying that something around you can cause cancer.
Totally ironic that one of the the cleanest places on the planet isn't considered safe.
That law went way too far.Oh, and the signs are everywhere because of cleaning solutions.
If you DON'T see a sign, be concerned - they probably aren't cleaning the place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519914</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"</p><p>"That should totally be made into a T-Shirt"</p><p>And ALL politicians should be forced to wear one, and have it clearly visible at all times!</p><p>Actually it should say<br>"Warning: Politics makes you a fuckhead" on the front, and<br>"Living Example!" on the back!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Warning : " Politics makes you a fuckhead " " That should totally be made into a T-Shirt " And ALL politicians should be forced to wear one , and have it clearly visible at all times ! Actually it should say " Warning : Politics makes you a fuckhead " on the front , and " Living Example !
" on the back ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead""That should totally be made into a T-Shirt"And ALL politicians should be forced to wear one, and have it clearly visible at all times!Actually it should say"Warning: Politics makes you a fuckhead" on the front, and"Living Example!
" on the back!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514264</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow this legislation to pass, and then shoot everyone who supports it.</p><p>Win/win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow this legislation to pass , and then shoot everyone who supports it.Win/win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow this legislation to pass, and then shoot everyone who supports it.Win/win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515072</id>
	<title>Wifi on laptops</title>
	<author>Capt. Skinny</author>
	<datestamp>1261424700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>She also said during <a href="http://www.coast931.com/play\_window.php?audioType=Episode&amp;audioId=4246914" title="coast931.com" rel="nofollow">a radio interview</a> [coast931.com] this morning that "laptops should not be used on your lap" because the wifi signals can cause cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>She also said during a radio interview [ coast931.com ] this morning that " laptops should not be used on your lap " because the wifi signals can cause cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She also said during a radio interview [coast931.com] this morning that "laptops should not be used on your lap" because the wifi signals can cause cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517086</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261391280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"</p></div><p>I think politicians really really should wear this <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/itdepartment/aa00/" title="thinkgeek.com">Turing-test T-shirt</a> [thinkgeek.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : " Politics makes you a fuckhead " I think politicians really really should wear this Turing-test T-shirt [ thinkgeek.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"I think politicians really really should wear this Turing-test T-shirt [thinkgeek.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521106</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1261424880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometime back I read that Cancer will be <i>prevented</i> if you drink <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate</a> [wikipedia.org] juice everyday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometime back I read that Cancer will be prevented if you drink http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate [ wikipedia.org ] juice everyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometime back I read that Cancer will be prevented if you drink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate [wikipedia.org] juice everyday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514350</id>
	<title>The end</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1261421580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all have to go sometime, son.  And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all have to go sometime , son .
And you 've used all your rollover minutes anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all have to go sometime, son.
And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515830</id>
	<title>Re:No proof?</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1261428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.</p></div></blockquote><p>Inconclusive, unless you know what they were like before they got their cell phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage , just listen to someone talking on one.Inconclusive , unless you know what they were like before they got their cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.Inconclusive, unless you know what they were like before they got their cell phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517214</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>Ultimate Heretic</author>
	<datestamp>1261391940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And since my hat makes my head warm and my pillow selectively warms one side of my head, they must be cancer causing agents as well. If you hold a cell phone that is OFF against your head for 1/2 hour, bet you it and your ear feels warm too. Better ban those ear muffs. I guess the only cure is to go nude and live under a pavillion so the excess body heat can be carried out by the wind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since my hat makes my head warm and my pillow selectively warms one side of my head , they must be cancer causing agents as well .
If you hold a cell phone that is OFF against your head for 1/2 hour , bet you it and your ear feels warm too .
Better ban those ear muffs .
I guess the only cure is to go nude and live under a pavillion so the excess body heat can be carried out by the wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since my hat makes my head warm and my pillow selectively warms one side of my head, they must be cancer causing agents as well.
If you hold a cell phone that is OFF against your head for 1/2 hour, bet you it and your ear feels warm too.
Better ban those ear muffs.
I guess the only cure is to go nude and live under a pavillion so the excess body heat can be carried out by the wind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517966</id>
	<title>It'll really be funny when...</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1261396380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they bust down your door to take out
your pot grow, only to discover that it's WHEAT.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they bust down your door to take out your pot grow , only to discover that it 's WHEAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they bust down your door to take out
your pot grow, only to discover that it's WHEAT.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514980</id>
	<title>Re:No proof?</title>
	<author>Kierthos</author>
	<datestamp>1261424340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would posit that using Twitter causes brain damage at a far faster rate and in greater numbers of users then cell phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would posit that using Twitter causes brain damage at a far faster rate and in greater numbers of users then cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would posit that using Twitter causes brain damage at a far faster rate and in greater numbers of users then cell phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516900</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1261390440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who needs scientists when so many other countries have hare-brainedly agreed that cellphones may cause cancer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs scientists when so many other countries have hare-brainedly agreed that cellphones may cause cancer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs scientists when so many other countries have hare-brainedly agreed that cellphones may cause cancer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515762</id>
	<title>Re:Will this be covered by the public option?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1261427880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your cell phone, if it's in the US, probably operates at one of two ranges:  900MHz or 1800MHz.  I think most of the newer ones use 1800MHz.  So if you're worried about the frequency differential, there isn't THAT much of a gap between 1.8GHz and 2.4GHz, so if you've got a newer cell you're already soaking in higher-frequency RF.  Especially in Europe, where the 3G networks switched from the old 900/1800MHz frequencies to 2100MHz (2.1GHz) years ago.</p><p>The real concern, as others have mentioned, is power.  Your cell phone puts out enough power to be heard by a tower that can be a couple of miles (a few KM) away.  Your Bluetooth headset uses enough power to reach about 30 feet (10 meters).  That's a very large difference in power.  A Class II Bluetooth headset is probably on the order of 2.5mW (.0025 watts), while your average cell phone can be hundreds of times that amount.</p><p>As far as the studies that debunk the cellphone - cancer link, especially the oft-cited Scandinavian one...  Unfortunately, most of them I've seen cited are based on analog cell phones.  The Scandinavian study cited above ran until 2003, which is the first year that EDGE came out.  Coincidentally, the introduction of EDGE was also when the 2100MHz frequencies started coming into heavy use.  So the Scandinavian study doesn't cover the time period that includes any EDGE or 3G services.</p><p>So, while I don't know the current state of the science, keep in mind that the biggest, most cited study supporting "no link between cell and cancer" is a large-scale informal data aggregation that does not include data on the technology the phone you actually carry actually employs.  It's rather like saying that airbags don't save lives because the horses that draw our carriages can't run fast enough to hurt anyone if there's a crash.</p><p>The nature of the data aggregation in the oft-cited Scandinavian study also didn't attempt to track who actually uses cell phones and whether those individuals got cancer, it tracked the rate of two specific types of cranial cancer over 30 years and generically explained increases in certain age groups until it found there were enough explanations to cover all the reported cases of that specific cancer and called it good.  No attempt was made to:<br>
 - determine whether cases happened in younger groups (you only generally get terminal brain cancer once, depriving you of the chance to get it when you are older),<br>
 - determine whether other cancers went up (or not),<br>
 - or whether there was a higher incidence of cranial cancers among actual cell users (and especially heavy cell users) as opposed to the general populace.</p><p>They dismissed the actual measured and documented increases as a result of better detection, but I saw no sign that they compared those increase rates so, say, some other cancers that couldn't be cell-related.  Not that it would be that meaningful, but it'd be nice to see how the better detection rates affected other cancers during the same period.</p><p>So we have an aggregation based on non-current technology that indicates a clear increase in cancer.  The increase is then explained away by better detection technology.  Pardon me if I'm not ENTIRELY convinced by it.  I'm not saying there IS a link, I'm just saying the data analysis done doesn't appear to support such a conclusion.</p><p>More recent and formal studies (in other words, those that actually study current technologies and use a control population and a study population) have somewhat more concerning, though not entirely conclusive, results.   (WHO Example <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569465,00.html" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569465,00.html</a> [foxnews.com]   ).</p><p>Is there a link?  I, for one, honestly don't know.  I tend to use my cell stuck up next to my head, which is probably not the best idea, and I'll probably start using a bluetooth headset more often for calls just because of the lower RF output and my deep and abiding desire to live forever (so far, so good).  But since I used to use</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cell phone , if it 's in the US , probably operates at one of two ranges : 900MHz or 1800MHz .
I think most of the newer ones use 1800MHz .
So if you 're worried about the frequency differential , there is n't THAT much of a gap between 1.8GHz and 2.4GHz , so if you 've got a newer cell you 're already soaking in higher-frequency RF .
Especially in Europe , where the 3G networks switched from the old 900/1800MHz frequencies to 2100MHz ( 2.1GHz ) years ago.The real concern , as others have mentioned , is power .
Your cell phone puts out enough power to be heard by a tower that can be a couple of miles ( a few KM ) away .
Your Bluetooth headset uses enough power to reach about 30 feet ( 10 meters ) .
That 's a very large difference in power .
A Class II Bluetooth headset is probably on the order of 2.5mW ( .0025 watts ) , while your average cell phone can be hundreds of times that amount.As far as the studies that debunk the cellphone - cancer link , especially the oft-cited Scandinavian one... Unfortunately , most of them I 've seen cited are based on analog cell phones .
The Scandinavian study cited above ran until 2003 , which is the first year that EDGE came out .
Coincidentally , the introduction of EDGE was also when the 2100MHz frequencies started coming into heavy use .
So the Scandinavian study does n't cover the time period that includes any EDGE or 3G services.So , while I do n't know the current state of the science , keep in mind that the biggest , most cited study supporting " no link between cell and cancer " is a large-scale informal data aggregation that does not include data on the technology the phone you actually carry actually employs .
It 's rather like saying that airbags do n't save lives because the horses that draw our carriages ca n't run fast enough to hurt anyone if there 's a crash.The nature of the data aggregation in the oft-cited Scandinavian study also did n't attempt to track who actually uses cell phones and whether those individuals got cancer , it tracked the rate of two specific types of cranial cancer over 30 years and generically explained increases in certain age groups until it found there were enough explanations to cover all the reported cases of that specific cancer and called it good .
No attempt was made to : - determine whether cases happened in younger groups ( you only generally get terminal brain cancer once , depriving you of the chance to get it when you are older ) , - determine whether other cancers went up ( or not ) , - or whether there was a higher incidence of cranial cancers among actual cell users ( and especially heavy cell users ) as opposed to the general populace.They dismissed the actual measured and documented increases as a result of better detection , but I saw no sign that they compared those increase rates so , say , some other cancers that could n't be cell-related .
Not that it would be that meaningful , but it 'd be nice to see how the better detection rates affected other cancers during the same period.So we have an aggregation based on non-current technology that indicates a clear increase in cancer .
The increase is then explained away by better detection technology .
Pardon me if I 'm not ENTIRELY convinced by it .
I 'm not saying there IS a link , I 'm just saying the data analysis done does n't appear to support such a conclusion.More recent and formal studies ( in other words , those that actually study current technologies and use a control population and a study population ) have somewhat more concerning , though not entirely conclusive , results .
( WHO Example http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569465,00.html [ foxnews.com ] ) .Is there a link ?
I , for one , honestly do n't know .
I tend to use my cell stuck up next to my head , which is probably not the best idea , and I 'll probably start using a bluetooth headset more often for calls just because of the lower RF output and my deep and abiding desire to live forever ( so far , so good ) .
But since I used to use</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cell phone, if it's in the US, probably operates at one of two ranges:  900MHz or 1800MHz.
I think most of the newer ones use 1800MHz.
So if you're worried about the frequency differential, there isn't THAT much of a gap between 1.8GHz and 2.4GHz, so if you've got a newer cell you're already soaking in higher-frequency RF.
Especially in Europe, where the 3G networks switched from the old 900/1800MHz frequencies to 2100MHz (2.1GHz) years ago.The real concern, as others have mentioned, is power.
Your cell phone puts out enough power to be heard by a tower that can be a couple of miles (a few KM) away.
Your Bluetooth headset uses enough power to reach about 30 feet (10 meters).
That's a very large difference in power.
A Class II Bluetooth headset is probably on the order of 2.5mW (.0025 watts), while your average cell phone can be hundreds of times that amount.As far as the studies that debunk the cellphone - cancer link, especially the oft-cited Scandinavian one...  Unfortunately, most of them I've seen cited are based on analog cell phones.
The Scandinavian study cited above ran until 2003, which is the first year that EDGE came out.
Coincidentally, the introduction of EDGE was also when the 2100MHz frequencies started coming into heavy use.
So the Scandinavian study doesn't cover the time period that includes any EDGE or 3G services.So, while I don't know the current state of the science, keep in mind that the biggest, most cited study supporting "no link between cell and cancer" is a large-scale informal data aggregation that does not include data on the technology the phone you actually carry actually employs.
It's rather like saying that airbags don't save lives because the horses that draw our carriages can't run fast enough to hurt anyone if there's a crash.The nature of the data aggregation in the oft-cited Scandinavian study also didn't attempt to track who actually uses cell phones and whether those individuals got cancer, it tracked the rate of two specific types of cranial cancer over 30 years and generically explained increases in certain age groups until it found there were enough explanations to cover all the reported cases of that specific cancer and called it good.
No attempt was made to:
 - determine whether cases happened in younger groups (you only generally get terminal brain cancer once, depriving you of the chance to get it when you are older),
 - determine whether other cancers went up (or not),
 - or whether there was a higher incidence of cranial cancers among actual cell users (and especially heavy cell users) as opposed to the general populace.They dismissed the actual measured and documented increases as a result of better detection, but I saw no sign that they compared those increase rates so, say, some other cancers that couldn't be cell-related.
Not that it would be that meaningful, but it'd be nice to see how the better detection rates affected other cancers during the same period.So we have an aggregation based on non-current technology that indicates a clear increase in cancer.
The increase is then explained away by better detection technology.
Pardon me if I'm not ENTIRELY convinced by it.
I'm not saying there IS a link, I'm just saying the data analysis done doesn't appear to support such a conclusion.More recent and formal studies (in other words, those that actually study current technologies and use a control population and a study population) have somewhat more concerning, though not entirely conclusive, results.
(WHO Example http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569465,00.html [foxnews.com]   ).Is there a link?
I, for one, honestly don't know.
I tend to use my cell stuck up next to my head, which is probably not the best idea, and I'll probably start using a bluetooth headset more often for calls just because of the lower RF output and my deep and abiding desire to live forever (so far, so good).
But since I used to use</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515306</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261425720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Aspartame makes you Fat"</i>
<br>
<br>
Actually, there is legitimate research showing that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Aspartame makes you Fat " Actually , there is legitimate research showing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Aspartame makes you Fat"


Actually, there is legitimate research showing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514270</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's RADIATION!  And ATOMS are doing it!  I don't need your degree in bullshitology to understand those simple facts, Mr. <i>Scientist</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's RADIATION !
And ATOMS are doing it !
I do n't need your degree in bullshitology to understand those simple facts , Mr. Scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's RADIATION!
And ATOMS are doing it!
I don't need your degree in bullshitology to understand those simple facts, Mr. Scientist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516584</id>
	<title>Re:insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RF Power amps are only 50 percent efficient at best.   Half of the power into the final amplifier is converted to heat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RF Power amps are only 50 percent efficient at best .
Half of the power into the final amplifier is converted to heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RF Power amps are only 50 percent efficient at best.
Half of the power into the final amplifier is converted to heat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515454</id>
	<title>objective measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261426440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its almost as if they need an objective way of quantifying just how much a substance causes cancer. to do so in a standardised way would get interesting but hey why not. could require a few codes, but still a number might be possible given some reasonable assumptions?</p><p>what do you think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its almost as if they need an objective way of quantifying just how much a substance causes cancer .
to do so in a standardised way would get interesting but hey why not .
could require a few codes , but still a number might be possible given some reasonable assumptions ? what do you think / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its almost as if they need an objective way of quantifying just how much a substance causes cancer.
to do so in a standardised way would get interesting but hey why not.
could require a few codes, but still a number might be possible given some reasonable assumptions?what do you think /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517324</id>
	<title>Skeptoid</title>
	<author>Faux\_Pseudo</author>
	<datestamp>1261392540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you haven't heard the Skeptoid episode on the topic of cell phones and cancer its worth a listen.<br><a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117" title="skeptoid.com">http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117</a> [skeptoid.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't heard the Skeptoid episode on the topic of cell phones and cancer its worth a listen.http : //skeptoid.com/episodes/4117 [ skeptoid.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't heard the Skeptoid episode on the topic of cell phones and cancer its worth a listen.http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117 [skeptoid.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</id>
	<title>Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1261421100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the Science to support this claim ?
Everything I 've read , including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users , concludes that it is not the case .
Without the science , he should SHUT THE FUCK UP !
I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity .
All the people who refuse to use science ( i.e .
Obser-fucking-vation ) to form policy , guide their actions , and make decisions , and would rather use tea leaves , bones , or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass , need to FUCKING DIE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the Science to support this claim?
Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case.
Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity.
All the people who refuse to use science (i.e.
Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514694</id>
	<title>Re:You always need to be first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you be "just looking for the truth," while explicitly saying that you "don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists" though?  Exactly what "truth" are you looking for, when you're willing to discount evidence, your discounting itself based on no evidence at all?  You've managed to broadly paint anyone who might assist you in your search as fatally biased.  It seems to me that the only "truth" you're seeking is that everyone but you is an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you be " just looking for the truth , " while explicitly saying that you " do n't trust the motives of any of the current scientists " though ?
Exactly what " truth " are you looking for , when you 're willing to discount evidence , your discounting itself based on no evidence at all ?
You 've managed to broadly paint anyone who might assist you in your search as fatally biased .
It seems to me that the only " truth " you 're seeking is that everyone but you is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you be "just looking for the truth," while explicitly saying that you "don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists" though?
Exactly what "truth" are you looking for, when you're willing to discount evidence, your discounting itself based on no evidence at all?
You've managed to broadly paint anyone who might assist you in your search as fatally biased.
It seems to me that the only "truth" you're seeking is that everyone but you is an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470</id>
	<title>Idiotic</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1261422120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen.  What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign.  Legitimately, too, since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic, like gasoline and paint.  Now everyone just ignores the signs because they're everywhere.
</p><p>If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like "On these premises there's something really, really carcinogenic.  We're not kidding, either.  Don't push your luck."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen .
What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign .
Legitimately , too , since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic , like gasoline and paint .
Now everyone just ignores the signs because they 're everywhere .
If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like " On these premises there 's something really , really carcinogenic .
We 're not kidding , either .
Do n't push your luck .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen.
What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign.
Legitimately, too, since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic, like gasoline and paint.
Now everyone just ignores the signs because they're everywhere.
If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like "On these premises there's something really, really carcinogenic.
We're not kidding, either.
Don't push your luck.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515392</id>
	<title>Laces out!</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1261426140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Be careful with that phone lieutenant!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Over time, you could develop a tumor!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Be careful with that phone lieutenant !
...Over time , you could develop a tumor !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Be careful with that phone lieutenant!
...Over time, you could develop a tumor!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515882</id>
	<title>Re:Great more according to the state of whatever</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1261428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever seen somebody die of cancer? If you haven't, find somebody who knows someone who has and ask them if dying of cancer was pretty much the same as, say, dying instantly in a car crash.</p><p>We're all going to die some day, so why not die in an excruciating, pathetic, drawn-out way that causes your entire family to suffer? That's what you're saying?</p><p>(Has nothing to do with the claims from the article, which are bullshit)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever seen somebody die of cancer ?
If you have n't , find somebody who knows someone who has and ask them if dying of cancer was pretty much the same as , say , dying instantly in a car crash.We 're all going to die some day , so why not die in an excruciating , pathetic , drawn-out way that causes your entire family to suffer ?
That 's what you 're saying ?
( Has nothing to do with the claims from the article , which are bullshit )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever seen somebody die of cancer?
If you haven't, find somebody who knows someone who has and ask them if dying of cancer was pretty much the same as, say, dying instantly in a car crash.We're all going to die some day, so why not die in an excruciating, pathetic, drawn-out way that causes your entire family to suffer?
That's what you're saying?
(Has nothing to do with the claims from the article, which are bullshit)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30526294</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>ikeman32</author>
	<datestamp>1261509960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.</p></div><p>LOL, now that would be cool. </p><p>And for the politically correct version: "Warning use of Politicians may be hazardous to your IQ. Politicians contain high doses of Politics which have been known to cause severe deficiencies in common sense in otherwise intelligent people."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They really should have a " Politics makes you a fuckhead " warning.LOL , now that would be cool .
And for the politically correct version : " Warning use of Politicians may be hazardous to your IQ .
Politicians contain high doses of Politics which have been known to cause severe deficiencies in common sense in otherwise intelligent people .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.LOL, now that would be cool.
And for the politically correct version: "Warning use of Politicians may be hazardous to your IQ.
Politicians contain high doses of Politics which have been known to cause severe deficiencies in common sense in otherwise intelligent people.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518216</id>
	<title>Re:You always need to be first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261397940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items.  It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it?</p></div><p>Nah, he's just got a patent on government entities passing laws requiring warning labels on cell phones....  Actually, probably something even broader than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that you need to be first with many things , such as warnings on consumer items .
It 's a race to keep your citizens safe , or is it ? Nah , he 's just got a patent on government entities passing laws requiring warning labels on cell phones.... Actually , probably something even broader than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items.
It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it?Nah, he's just got a patent on government entities passing laws requiring warning labels on cell phones....  Actually, probably something even broader than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517776</id>
	<title>The big one</title>
	<author>rhook</author>
	<datestamp>1261395120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big one needs to hit and make San Francisco fall into the Pacific, that city does more harm to this nation than one can imagine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big one needs to hit and make San Francisco fall into the Pacific , that city does more harm to this nation than one can imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big one needs to hit and make San Francisco fall into the Pacific, that city does more harm to this nation than one can imagine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516552</id>
	<title>Re:Just like California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago."</p><p>Yes.  It was <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922499,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">an accident before the first shuttle launch</a> [time.com].  According to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen\_asphyxiation#Evidence\_from\_cases\_of\_accidental\_death\_from\_nitrogen\_asphyxiation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikipedia page on nitrogen asphyxiation</a> [wikipedia.org], accidental nitrogen asphyxiation apparently accounts for about 8 deaths per year in the U.S.</p><p>It might be simpler to think of this as the equivalent of drowning, but with a dangerous twist -- everybody knows that you'll ordinarily die within a few minutes if you are immersed in water, but the advantage there is the reaction of your body the moment it starts happening: you *know* you are drowning, and your body naturally reacts vigorously.  It isn't so clear for many non-breathable gasses, where you may get no distinct clue that there is a problem until you are about to faint, and some people apparently experience no warnings at all due to oxygen hypoxia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago. " Yes .
It was an accident before the first shuttle launch [ time.com ] .
According to the wikipedia page on nitrogen asphyxiation [ wikipedia.org ] , accidental nitrogen asphyxiation apparently accounts for about 8 deaths per year in the U.S.It might be simpler to think of this as the equivalent of drowning , but with a dangerous twist -- everybody knows that you 'll ordinarily die within a few minutes if you are immersed in water , but the advantage there is the reaction of your body the moment it starts happening : you * know * you are drowning , and your body naturally reacts vigorously .
It is n't so clear for many non-breathable gasses , where you may get no distinct clue that there is a problem until you are about to faint , and some people apparently experience no warnings at all due to oxygen hypoxia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago."Yes.
It was an accident before the first shuttle launch [time.com].
According to the wikipedia page on nitrogen asphyxiation [wikipedia.org], accidental nitrogen asphyxiation apparently accounts for about 8 deaths per year in the U.S.It might be simpler to think of this as the equivalent of drowning, but with a dangerous twist -- everybody knows that you'll ordinarily die within a few minutes if you are immersed in water, but the advantage there is the reaction of your body the moment it starts happening: you *know* you are drowning, and your body naturally reacts vigorously.
It isn't so clear for many non-breathable gasses, where you may get no distinct clue that there is a problem until you are about to faint, and some people apparently experience no warnings at all due to oxygen hypoxia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514722</id>
	<title>Forgot basic science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microwaves heat things by depositing kinetic RF energy into the molecules of your food.  Microwave is higher wavelength than visible light (i.e. lower energy per photon).  Cell phones use microwave bandwidth.  Anyone who gets an MRI might feel a slight warming sensation due to RF energy deposited, but this is known without dispute to NOT cause cancer.  You can get multiple MRIs without any radiation exposure, because RF energy is lower energy per photon than visible light.</p><p>UV, x-rays and gamma rays deposit more energy per photon (they are shorter wavelength than visible light) and instead of just depositing energy elastically into the molecules of your cells, they can physically break molecules that bond your DNA.  That is what leads to cancer from radiation exposure.</p><p>Cell phones don't do that.</p><p>-Medical Physicist / Biomedical engineer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microwaves heat things by depositing kinetic RF energy into the molecules of your food .
Microwave is higher wavelength than visible light ( i.e .
lower energy per photon ) .
Cell phones use microwave bandwidth .
Anyone who gets an MRI might feel a slight warming sensation due to RF energy deposited , but this is known without dispute to NOT cause cancer .
You can get multiple MRIs without any radiation exposure , because RF energy is lower energy per photon than visible light.UV , x-rays and gamma rays deposit more energy per photon ( they are shorter wavelength than visible light ) and instead of just depositing energy elastically into the molecules of your cells , they can physically break molecules that bond your DNA .
That is what leads to cancer from radiation exposure.Cell phones do n't do that.-Medical Physicist / Biomedical engineer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microwaves heat things by depositing kinetic RF energy into the molecules of your food.
Microwave is higher wavelength than visible light (i.e.
lower energy per photon).
Cell phones use microwave bandwidth.
Anyone who gets an MRI might feel a slight warming sensation due to RF energy deposited, but this is known without dispute to NOT cause cancer.
You can get multiple MRIs without any radiation exposure, because RF energy is lower energy per photon than visible light.UV, x-rays and gamma rays deposit more energy per photon (they are shorter wavelength than visible light) and instead of just depositing energy elastically into the molecules of your cells, they can physically break molecules that bond your DNA.
That is what leads to cancer from radiation exposure.Cell phones don't do that.-Medical Physicist / Biomedical engineer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515240</id>
	<title>Re:Probably not a bad idea</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1261425420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need a warning on milk bottles that we must not forget to put out a saucer of milk for the fairies and brownies every night. There have been many unhappy instances where people forgot to do this. The actual science for this is just as impressive as that for cell phone caused cancer.</p><p>The only reason this cell phone caused cancer is taken seriously, is because the lawyers smell blood. It's something they think will make them huge piles of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a warning on milk bottles that we must not forget to put out a saucer of milk for the fairies and brownies every night .
There have been many unhappy instances where people forgot to do this .
The actual science for this is just as impressive as that for cell phone caused cancer.The only reason this cell phone caused cancer is taken seriously , is because the lawyers smell blood .
It 's something they think will make them huge piles of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a warning on milk bottles that we must not forget to put out a saucer of milk for the fairies and brownies every night.
There have been many unhappy instances where people forgot to do this.
The actual science for this is just as impressive as that for cell phone caused cancer.The only reason this cell phone caused cancer is taken seriously, is because the lawyers smell blood.
It's something they think will make them huge piles of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514444</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Science?</title>
	<author>ravenscar</author>
	<datestamp>1261422060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The science is being expended on trying to figure out how to affix a massive cancer warning label to the Sun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The science is being expended on trying to figure out how to affix a massive cancer warning label to the Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The science is being expended on trying to figure out how to affix a massive cancer warning label to the Sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515536</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261426860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPS Receivers never "emit GPS signals".<br>
&nbsp; The principle of their operation relies on the reception of broadcasts from GPS satellites. <br>The satellites aren't even able to themselves locate the GPS receivers which they help to position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS Receivers never " emit GPS signals " .
  The principle of their operation relies on the reception of broadcasts from GPS satellites .
The satellites are n't even able to themselves locate the GPS receivers which they help to position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS Receivers never "emit GPS signals".
  The principle of their operation relies on the reception of broadcasts from GPS satellites.
The satellites aren't even able to themselves locate the GPS receivers which they help to position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>citab</author>
	<datestamp>1261421400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"</p><p>That should totally be made into a T-Shirt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : " Politics makes you a fuckhead " That should totally be made into a T-Shirt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"That should totally be made into a T-Shirt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194</id>
	<title>No proof?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage , just listen to someone talking on one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30532088</id>
	<title>Re:No proof?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261496580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely the truest reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely the truest reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely the truest reply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519040</id>
	<title>Re:the sky is falling!</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1261405140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since you thing anything with "radiation" is bad, I have dire warning for you, your ear is less than 30 mm from a 150 watt infrared radiation source!  better rip that 3.5 kilogram source off your ear, stuff it into a bio-hazard bag, and incinerate it now!  you won't miss the thing, you're not using it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since you thing anything with " radiation " is bad , I have dire warning for you , your ear is less than 30 mm from a 150 watt infrared radiation source !
better rip that 3.5 kilogram source off your ear , stuff it into a bio-hazard bag , and incinerate it now !
you wo n't miss the thing , you 're not using it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since you thing anything with "radiation" is bad, I have dire warning for you, your ear is less than 30 mm from a 150 watt infrared radiation source!
better rip that 3.5 kilogram source off your ear, stuff it into a bio-hazard bag, and incinerate it now!
you won't miss the thing, you're not using it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517556</id>
	<title>That's nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we got a <a href="http://opmerkelijk.nieuws.nl/579192/champagnekurken\_baart\_europarlementarier\_zorgen" title="nieuws.nl" rel="nofollow">legislator</a> [nieuws.nl] (dutch) that wants a label on champagne bottles, because the popping cork may cause eye damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we got a legislator [ nieuws.nl ] ( dutch ) that wants a label on champagne bottles , because the popping cork may cause eye damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we got a legislator [nieuws.nl] (dutch) that wants a label on champagne bottles, because the popping cork may cause eye damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30523638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30524670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30532088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30527374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30526294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1614221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30532088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30527374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516878
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30526294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30519950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516998
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518616
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30518216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30523638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30521106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30524670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30517214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1614221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30516552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30515870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1614221.30514416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
