Intervija ar Džonatanu Hāsu. Es paliku pie sava un nepadevos

Achat Cialis Usa Buy Wellbutrin Xl 300 Mg Online Amoxicillin And Alesse Side Affects <a href=http://sildenaf100.com>viagra</a> Viagra Tunisie Vente Diclofenac Generic Name

, the increased gscoule response was close to the level reached when talking. She also reported the difference in brain activation was less than that involved in lifting a finger. To me, the fact that we literally don't even have to lift a finger to get a 7% gscoule brain response means to me that the researchers should have taken extra special care to control for at least the most obvious confounding variables (like heat), and think their results would have been much more compelling if they showed that the brain's increased response switched from the right side to the left as the phone activation was switched, but they only tested the right side for some reason. But anyway, whatever difficulties some people (including myself) might have with this one study, several sources I looked at today that I tend to trust say there was good evidence that EMFs can increase gscoule activation in the brain even before Volkow's study. But scientific skepticism abounds about the importance of this finding. It seems pretty easy for most anything to evoke gscoule metabolism in the brain (just thinking about something like food can evoke a much larger response than that found by Volkow), and meanwhile the preponderance of evidence from the most credible researchers and organizations hasn't pointed to any ill effects (other than thermal dangers), so putting those together, I don't feel worried about cell phone RF (other things, yes, like driving while talking on the phone, or worse: texting). I have a feeling we may never get to final conclusion that RF waves are safe; it's very hard to prove anything to be completely safe. The RF debate reminds me a lot of the vaccine debate.

Kazahstānā vasarā ir kartsāks kā Lv, ziemā aukstāks. Aizpagājušogad pēc izbraukšanas no spetes mums stāstīja, ka iepriekšējā dienā esot bijuši 45 grādi, ja atmiņa neviļ. Ēnā bija ļoti paciešami, jo sauss. Savukārt pagāšvasar vietējie smīkņāja, kad stāstījām, ka pie mums reizēm pa ziemu nokrīt arī līdz -30.

in the post. I started by elnxaiping that there is no plausible scientific hypothesis for mechanism of harm. You claim I then made a common error, stating that scientists investigate because little is known about the potential effects. You claim scientists investigate because of paranoia. I don't know what kind of experience you have with research, but the fact is that most scientists have to investigate those things for which they can get research dollars, and you can't get funding to study something just because people are paranoid about it. To get funding, you have to have some evidence and/or hypothesis in place to suggest that you might get an interesting result (that hasn't been obtained before), which means that my statement is more accurate in this case: scientists continue to investigate because there's little known about potential long-term effects of exposure (and there's continued curiosity in the scientific community as to whether there could be long-term effects).The fact that the glucose study failed to control for temperature doesn't actually matter. Because of the lack of control, one can't conclude from the study that the EMR from cell phones affects glucose metabolism, but one can conclude that the use of handset cellphones affects glucose metabolism. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? An unimportant thing? Why knows.Because a) the study provided good evidence that (regardless of why it happens) cell phones alter glucose metabolism, and because b) using a headset for long calls is essentially a risk-free action with the potential for benefit, there's no reason not to. Here's the thing; when you're doing a risk-to-benefit analysis, if there's a (significant) potential for risk in an activity, you need to be able to show a major potential for benefit in order to justify it. Here, there's an unknown risk associated with using a cellphone handset, because while studies have demonstrated that phone use doesn't cause cancer, studies have also shown that (because of EMR, because of temperature, or because of who-knows-what) cell phone handsets alter brain glucose metabolism. So unknown risk. That makes it impossible to do a risk-to-benefit analysis. By adding in a headset, you remove the element of the unknown. You get to make your call (benefit), and you avoid the unknown risk of altering brain glucose metabolism. Please note that I wasn't reactionary or extreme; I didn't say always use a headset. In fact, I will re-post the entire text of the bottom line here, with emphasis (in bold) and comments (in italics):There’s no evidence that cell phones cause cancer, but there is evidence that they affect brain activity, note that I didn't say it was the EMR responsible for the brain activity effects and there’s not much yet known about how they do so again, asserting that we don't know HOW they affect glucose metabolism, so it doesn't matter whether or not the study controlled for temperature, or what the long-term effects might be. A reasonable course of action in situations like this, in which the risks are poorly defined, is to proceed with caution this is a very measured response. I didn't say freak out, I didn't say never use a headset. Instead, I said: Using a cell phone for short periods during the day and/or infrequently for longer periods isn’t likely to be a problem, but you may wish to invest in a headset if you (or your child) uses a cell phone frequently or for long periods of time on a regular basis. Why? Because using a headset for long periods of time is associated with an UNKNOWN risk of UNKNOWN origin with UNKNOWN significance.Hope that helps clear up my thinking on this topic! Thanks for your comments.

Hi Alice,Could you share your Sitemap or domain with me to take a look and see if I can help you out?Keep in mind you need to make sure your ppalyage, video content and thumbnail are all not blocked.amymac

:)