Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/15/2010 5:08:41 AM PDT by facedodge
I just spit coffee on my keyboard....
That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever seen on FR, and I’ve been here for years.
You didn’t even have to include a punchline —perfect!
Actually, nothing they found disproves this argument. Evolutionarily, it makes sense that they would see "age-related" diseases in corpses younger than the typical age of developing those diseases today: such diseases occurring at a younger age would remove those afflicted from the gene pool before they had a chance to pass on early onset forms of those diseases. The diseases that are not weeded out from the gene pool are those that occur after child-bearing has occurred. Also, isn't there a dietary component to development of those diseases? Cancer is mostly an age-related disease. Even the cancers that are not caused by age, like papillomavirus-caused cancers, typically take years to develop after the infection has occurred.
There are lots of contemporary paintings. Apparently men of all classes spent a lot of time outdoors and became very darkly tanned, but upper class women stayed mostly indoors, or at least undercover and had light complexions.
This would also beg the question, how has the anti-smoking hysteria affected incidence of lung cancer? Are there proportionally fewer cases now that it’s illegal to smoke practically everywhere? Or is this just another nanny-state knee-jerk that has not proven out?
There's the tip off.
The professor really sees cancer as merely a symptom of the true disease: industry.
This study is just a vehicle for his prejudice.
Can’t wait for the good professor to get a new grant to prove cancer is the cause of modern man living into his eighties. Hey, makes about as much sense as this last study.
Now that there was funny, I don’t care who ya are!
It's too bad the Egyptians didn't mummify those that died in the leper colonies. I'm sure more than just lepers were kept there anytime the medical experts of that time didn't understand what they were dealing with.
Apparently the NHS is proposing mummification as a cancer-prevention measure...provided that it’s less costly, of course.
The funny thing is, when you point out the true goals of the elitist leftists to the sheeperals,
they say you’re engaging in conspiracy theories.
“No, they don’t want to control where and how you live, what you drive, what you eat, how much energy you use, or whether you get healthcare - they just want to make society better for everyone.”
Just look for "ancient egypt clothing" on google and then select "images". The women are in tents and veils. The men have bottoms to the ground and tops to the neck, and half their arms are covered.
Given that there's no way to detect cancers to the internal organs when there are no intact organs, that leaves only forearms, faces, necks and toes for skin cancer.
That picture of our former Commander and Chief has become iconic. The punchline that has been used with it for so many years now isn’t needed anymore.
firefighters before drinking diet Pepsi.
Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra.
The first thing to know is that this is reported in a Brit paper and they’re first class liars that make American journalists seem honest in comparison.
Here’s the abstract. I don’t see any particular condemnation of industrialization.
“Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?
A. Rosalie David & Michael R. Zimmerman
Abstract
In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. The history of this disorder has the potential to improve our understanding of disease prevention, aetiology, pathogenesis and treatment. A striking rarity of malignancies in ancient physical remains might indicate that cancer was rare in antiquity, and so poses questions about the role of carcinogenic environmental factors in modern societies. Although the rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed, the first published histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy demonstrates that new evidence is still forthcoming.”
The better question is what was the cancer rate, not the total number of cases they've found.
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
from the posted link
That and abortion rates are likely very low and breast-feeding rates are likely very high, compared to developed nations. Both these practices have been shown to have an effect on the development breast cancer.
Except that much of such art was a depiction of everyday life, with no evidence of "artistic license".
"Just look for "ancient egypt clothing" on google and then select "images". The women are in tents and veils. The men have bottoms to the ground and tops to the neck, and half their arms are covered."
Depends on how ancient "ancient" is. I did the search you recommended, and I see PLENTY of skin. Very few "tents and veils", which, I suspect, date from the post-Islam period.
BTW, I limited my comment to those who had the economic wherewithal to afford full mummification. They undoubtedly spent little time outdoors laying bricks and leading cattle!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.