Are cell phones dangerous?
There is very interesting topic. More over very vital at the moment. Especially for me. I concerned about hazardous of cell phone. Several years ago I had any phone. Now I had two. One of them even doesn't has a model name just Nokia on the top. And this concern me because when I am talking on it this device heats enormously.
As a physics I know that the phone receive and radiate electromagnetic wave. Receiving electromagnetic waves isn't dangerous. It's like listening to the radio. But radiation of this wave isn't so simple. When I was a student I heard a lot of story from the guy who had had their army service at radar station. Radar is a big device, like a big car or sometime like a small building, at least in my mind, on part of it is radiolocator. Or radar set - it is a big plate which in fact made radiation and received it when radiated wave return from the reflected object. There power of the radiation should be very intense because the object used to be "enemies" plane or rocket. And these guys told scary story about how they throw the stray cats on this plate and how long these poor creatures had been living afterwards, how painfully they lost their fur and how they run away and probably dies somewhere under the thicket. Or the story about the officer who occasionally appeared on the working plate of radar just for several seconds and afterwards lost his ability to satisfy women with his magic finger.
Waves which let by the radiolocator have the same nature as the wave which radiate by the sun or X-ray. They have wavelength, but the nature is same. We know properly how dangerous is X-ray or exposing body on the heating sun. We know well how dangerous is wave emitted by radiolocator. But we don't realize well that the same wave discharged by our tiny-tiny mobile device. We don't realize the wave released by Wi-Fi devises could deteriorate our health. This way like radiation invisible and in the small dose couldn't substantially destroy our outer and inter body. But they work and eventually mankind will realize the dangerous which came to us in the new form of diseases.
I guess that parameter of emitted radiation of every phone should be on the top or at least on back cover of the phone so that people could compare and make decision which phone to buy.
I personally use phone very often and sometimes forget the jeopardy of the microwave emitted to my brain and have tiny hope that may be this wave isn't so dangerous, at least on my phone. But anyway how dangerous would be phone or Wi-Fi our competitive civilisation couldn't refuse from it. Because our life is constant running and that nation who refuse from that run has danger to appear under the influence of that who didn't refuse from the round and could easily enslave romantic nation.
506 words.
Saturday 28 April 2012
Monday 9 April 2012
Should cigarette smoking be banned? (479 )
Should cigarette smoking be banned?
Very complicated question with a various option to answer and long long discussion when every sides of the debate will be partially right and will not be right at the same time.
Let's regard the beginning of the smoking evolution. It evolves during the long period of time. I began at the time when medicine was in there initial state of development. At the time when mankind begin to smoke there was no any information about the harm which are caused by burning grass of tobacco. People didn't know about that fact that constant fuming marred their health, dirty their lungs and pollute the surroundings with contaminated air. During the long period of time army of smokers increased enormously whilst the knowledge about how resin which present in the dangerous smoke could destroy our body and curtail men's life.
For me the guy who once smoked and coped to quit very understandable feeling of the guy who appears for a while without a tiny cigarette in the pocket. And I can only imagine what a broil and turmoil could such a law if it would be passed by any parliament. People don't quit. Some of them quit of course. First of all that would be young people who just start to try this disgusting habit and their body isn't addicted to it properly. Some group of law-abiding citizens which were trained not to broke the law. May be there would be part of that who for a long time dreamed to quit spending money for the death.
Rest of them would resist the law for many reason. Some of the will die because for someone who's body deeply stuck in the addicted custom there will be impossible to survive without one tiny dose of the fumed poison. Couldn't afford to but tobacco illegally they doomed for the painful existence and obvious failure in the working of their body. But for the rest of them who afford themselves to find illegal nicotine the life full of adventure would begin. For someone who choose the life of smuggling and reselling drug it would be a way of earning money and source of income. There would be another group who will meet profit from this law - police, depending of the corruption level in the country someone obtain new mission, someone new source of money by bribing or supporting gangs criminal. In other way the life will begin more lively and adventurous.
The only exit in this situation I see in the right policy which mankind should produce in that way. The only way is to use part of the citizen who didn't quit smoking and didn't understand the harm of the fuming to show another part of society how harmful is smoking and may be better preserve that part form the destructive consequence of tobacco's smoke.
479 words.
Very complicated question with a various option to answer and long long discussion when every sides of the debate will be partially right and will not be right at the same time.
Let's regard the beginning of the smoking evolution. It evolves during the long period of time. I began at the time when medicine was in there initial state of development. At the time when mankind begin to smoke there was no any information about the harm which are caused by burning grass of tobacco. People didn't know about that fact that constant fuming marred their health, dirty their lungs and pollute the surroundings with contaminated air. During the long period of time army of smokers increased enormously whilst the knowledge about how resin which present in the dangerous smoke could destroy our body and curtail men's life.
For me the guy who once smoked and coped to quit very understandable feeling of the guy who appears for a while without a tiny cigarette in the pocket. And I can only imagine what a broil and turmoil could such a law if it would be passed by any parliament. People don't quit. Some of them quit of course. First of all that would be young people who just start to try this disgusting habit and their body isn't addicted to it properly. Some group of law-abiding citizens which were trained not to broke the law. May be there would be part of that who for a long time dreamed to quit spending money for the death.
Rest of them would resist the law for many reason. Some of the will die because for someone who's body deeply stuck in the addicted custom there will be impossible to survive without one tiny dose of the fumed poison. Couldn't afford to but tobacco illegally they doomed for the painful existence and obvious failure in the working of their body. But for the rest of them who afford themselves to find illegal nicotine the life full of adventure would begin. For someone who choose the life of smuggling and reselling drug it would be a way of earning money and source of income. There would be another group who will meet profit from this law - police, depending of the corruption level in the country someone obtain new mission, someone new source of money by bribing or supporting gangs criminal. In other way the life will begin more lively and adventurous.
The only exit in this situation I see in the right policy which mankind should produce in that way. The only way is to use part of the citizen who didn't quit smoking and didn't understand the harm of the fuming to show another part of society how harmful is smoking and may be better preserve that part form the destructive consequence of tobacco's smoke.
479 words.
Monday 2 April 2012
Should animals be used for research? (616 )
Should animals be used for research?
Yes of course animals should be used for research. Except one kind of animal which is Man or Women of course. Because in that case it will be a murder. Just imagine that we forbid to you animal to take part in any kind of research. But at the same time don't forbid to grow it for food. Any plant who grows animal after this could be accused in research, because in order to grow animals properly you need to made different experiment on and not on behalf of mankind but on account of good business.
We live in democratic society now, mostly of us do and may be in dictators country such a discussion would be impossible. So for forbidding to make an experiment on the animals we do need to persuade our parliament for voting for the law which could forbid the research on the animals. I am not sure that our parliament vote for this.
Animals take a very great part in the research on behalf of mankind health and progress. But first of all this is not first mission which lead animals during the thousands year of our cooperative existence. From the ancient time animals have been feeding us, taking us a clothes and decoration, and finally last hundred or so years man learn how to use them in their research.
That is mean that Research is one kind of violence against the animals. Of course one can assert that when we use the animals for feeding and covering our body is not same as we use animals in medicine or in another researches like in cosmos. If you remember the very first who saw the earth from the space ware dogs. Is it cruel eat them and kill them. Yes it's cruel. Just imagine mammals have almost the same internal intestine, cardiovascular and another systems, and there is one of the reason why we, people, use them in our research. Would it be kind it we use the man or women in research by using the same reason. No it will be criminal. But for animals to whom we give possibility to be born we could. Is it against the law of the universe? Is it against of law of the God? I am not sure about the first question but for the second different religion which are a mirror of the God will, don't forbid to kill animal for food. Of course some of them has preference or to be exact selective ban for eating some kind of animals, but they don't prohibit to kill the for food or for clothes at all. Why should we be ceased before the possibility to use our younger, on the scale of evolution, friends to be used in experiment which finally will help people to survive or live more quality life.
Let's imagine one of country decides to forbid to use it into experiment. But at first we need to specify what is experiment. Does it be an experiment if we don't give an animal some kind of food for one day. Sure it will be an experiment because at that case we infringe the ordinary way of life of the animal in order to see how they will behave themselves. After some time the new kind of sick begins to spread among the, not people this time amongst the animal, they will die very quickly, because experiment have forbidden and illness was unresearched. After some time I am sure would die even that people who voted for that law or they would have changed there mind under pressure of fear.
(616 words)
Yes of course animals should be used for research. Except one kind of animal which is Man or Women of course. Because in that case it will be a murder. Just imagine that we forbid to you animal to take part in any kind of research. But at the same time don't forbid to grow it for food. Any plant who grows animal after this could be accused in research, because in order to grow animals properly you need to made different experiment on and not on behalf of mankind but on account of good business.
We live in democratic society now, mostly of us do and may be in dictators country such a discussion would be impossible. So for forbidding to make an experiment on the animals we do need to persuade our parliament for voting for the law which could forbid the research on the animals. I am not sure that our parliament vote for this.
Animals take a very great part in the research on behalf of mankind health and progress. But first of all this is not first mission which lead animals during the thousands year of our cooperative existence. From the ancient time animals have been feeding us, taking us a clothes and decoration, and finally last hundred or so years man learn how to use them in their research.
That is mean that Research is one kind of violence against the animals. Of course one can assert that when we use the animals for feeding and covering our body is not same as we use animals in medicine or in another researches like in cosmos. If you remember the very first who saw the earth from the space ware dogs. Is it cruel eat them and kill them. Yes it's cruel. Just imagine mammals have almost the same internal intestine, cardiovascular and another systems, and there is one of the reason why we, people, use them in our research. Would it be kind it we use the man or women in research by using the same reason. No it will be criminal. But for animals to whom we give possibility to be born we could. Is it against the law of the universe? Is it against of law of the God? I am not sure about the first question but for the second different religion which are a mirror of the God will, don't forbid to kill animal for food. Of course some of them has preference or to be exact selective ban for eating some kind of animals, but they don't prohibit to kill the for food or for clothes at all. Why should we be ceased before the possibility to use our younger, on the scale of evolution, friends to be used in experiment which finally will help people to survive or live more quality life.
Let's imagine one of country decides to forbid to use it into experiment. But at first we need to specify what is experiment. Does it be an experiment if we don't give an animal some kind of food for one day. Sure it will be an experiment because at that case we infringe the ordinary way of life of the animal in order to see how they will behave themselves. After some time the new kind of sick begins to spread among the, not people this time amongst the animal, they will die very quickly, because experiment have forbidden and illness was unresearched. After some time I am sure would die even that people who voted for that law or they would have changed there mind under pressure of fear.
(616 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)