Deodorant Dilemma............

[elmo16]

At some point this thread has to return to smelly pits.

 

[genius]

Don't you just love that ad that shows this poor women who had to have many of her limbs amputated because she smoked? This whole ad is based on the fact that smoking constricts your arteries. Thankfully, they no longer show this ad. I supposed next they'll say that smoking causes AIDS.

I bet a similar ad would get close to 100% of male smokers to stop if they had a guy who had to have his dick amputated because he smoked.

 

[elmo16]

I bet a similar ad would get close to 100% of male smokers to stop if they had a guy who had to have his dick amputated because he smoked.

Ever had your pole smoked?

 

[DaveNJ]

That is simply not true and there have been many psychological showing such. Many (if not most) people base their decisions on emotions rather than actual mathematical risk. Surely the 1/3 of the population who smoke, where the data is absolutely in, rationalize every next decision to smoke that they take. People are concerned about the effects of power lines near their home (where the electro-magnetic fields from such are miniscule as compared to the electro-magnetic field from a small appliance such as an electric clock radio can be much higher because it is so much closer) yet many of those same people would drive while talking on their cell phone or w/o a seat belt or above the posted speed limit where the risk data is well established and well known.

To concern oneself about the results of very small studies, some of which contradict similar ones, about small risks is not rational.

That's because those people tend to think those risks are minimal or nonxistant for them. Sure, people might objectively agree that speeding is potentially more dangerous, but many of them also think they won't be the ones getting into an accident. That happens to "other people". Granted that's rationalizing, but its still part of the thinking process so it can be said that most people tend to do what they think is right.

BTW, are you sure about the clock radio being more dangerous than the power lines? Something tells me in small doses most things are OK. But you step it up to the next level and that's where people start having problems.

 

[genius]

.....BTW, are you sure about the clock radio being more dangerous than the power lines? Something tells me in small doses most things are OK. ....

Genius is a technical type. People (incorrectly) assume that since the power line carries so much more current and voltage than the clock radio it must generate much bigger E/M fields - and it does. Indeed if the power line was a few inches from your head as the clock radio is that there would be many orders of magnitude stronger fields. However it isn't and the field decreases greatly with increasing distance. The best example I can come up with is: the sun (or if you want to get closer to home a large fire) generates much much more heat energy than a candle flame - however the candle, if it is right next to to your skin, will cause much more immediate damage.

Probably the highest fields anyone could be exposed to is right next to the wall where the electric service runs down to your house (assuming it isn’t contained in metal conduit and you don’t have aluminum siding) as the current is the highest and the wall is only a few inches thick.

Even so there have been no studies I know of (any many have been done over the years) that link electric field exposure to any health issues - specifically to people who work in such an environment (high fields) for long periods of time e.g. electric substations, linemen, etc.