Man's search for a place in the universe is a tale as old as time. In this particular era, where the information environment pushes us to absolute judgements on complex issues, it can be difficult to publicly identify with tribe X. Can tribe X survive the purity test du jour? It's easier to define yourself in opposition, to be on the other side of the failed purity test. (Elon, in this article, is a great example. Does your crowd allow for any good in his work?)
There difference is between "check" and "do" - verifying your work is a helpful use of feedback, not being able to multiply single digits without a calculator is a failed skill without a crutch to rely on.
I believe, as the parent comment alluded to, the rat patrol has established a substantial beachhead into SK. The front lines are now outside the province and pushing east.
I've wondered about BC though - outside the density of the lower mainland anyways.
Growing up in AB, I really didn't conceptually understand what rats are like in other places. I can't think of another animal with that same ubiquitousness.
Having no exposure as a kid means I find them terribly terribly gross when I see them in other places - in a park in Mexico City a couple months ago I audibly jumped when I saw them rooting around in gardens. Probably something to be said about exposure therapy
I've lived in Saskatchewan my whole life where we don't have this law and I can't say I've seen a lot of rats in my life. Maybe if you work in unhygienic restaurant kitchens, or on a farm you might see them more. But in the city, it's not a thing I can ever remember encountering.
I grew up in Alberta, too. Intellectually, I knew what a rat was but I'd never seen one in my life. After school, I moved down to California and was leaving work late one night (Sunnyvale, CA) and saw this crazy thing walking along the curb near my car. It was like a really small cat, or a huge mouse, or a short weasel with a long tail. There I was, all alone in the parking lot in the middle of the night shouting at this rat, "Hey! You're a RAT!"
>I can't think of another animal with that same ubiquitousness.
In Toronto, you have rats, Racoons, Canadian geese, and pigeons. An infestation almost everywhere downtown and throughout the city.
I've seen a rat in Toronto that I mistaken for a Raccoon, it was insane how big it was. A crowd of people waiting for the Subway started running for their lives as it ran toward them on the platform. There is a rat, Racoon, epidemic in Toronto. They are everywhere and I don't think there is an effort to try and control them. As a matter of fact, I think they may be protected by law since I have heard of people almost going to jail for trying to chase away Raccoons with a broom.
I've wondered if the rise in friends and colleagues with sudden late stage cancers has just been a fluke of my circle or a symptom of a wider problem of an unknown cause.
My father died of esophageal cancer not long ago - as a man in his early 60s he followed a path similar to the first patient in the article. Two friends are currently battling similar cancers and headed down the path of more and more agressive or experimental treatment. A large part of that choice seems intrinsic. When my dad was told he was stage 4, he smiled and reflected on the life he had lived - at peace with his mortality. When my close friend was told the same, he was distraught that he'd never had the opportunity for children. I understand how those unstated biases about a life well lived enter the medical field - an important reminder that a life is not simply measured in years.
Artificial colors are known carcinogenic (lake 6, 40, etc) and absolutely unnecessary. Why don’t we start there. I recently stopped eating them and had to cut out a huge portion of convenience foods and candies simply because they are loaded with known-carcinogenic artificial coloring. It’s sad that children are the ones most targeted and most parents don’t seem to care.
Is the source of cancer usually something from 20 to 30 years ago? I can't imagine childhood food is causing cancer decades later? Don't our cells mostly turn over constantly?
Doesn't lung cancer risk basically drop off after quitting smoking? I thought skin cancer could be caused by just one burn?
>Is the source of cancer usually something from 20 to 30 years ago?
Oftentimes, yes. Quitting smoking reduces your risk of cancer but it is still higher than if you never smoked. Cancer is when a cell/cells mutate in specific ways that cause out of control growth, prevent the cells from self-destructing, prevent DNA repair inside the cells, etc. It is like playing a slot machine where all 4 reels have to come up “cancer mutation” for it to actually become a cancerous cell, otherwise the body processes fix or destroy the cell.
For the sake of argument, lets say each reel starts with 1,000 options and only 1 “cancer mutation”. Your inherited genetics could add a “cancer mutation”, solar radiation from a bad sunburn could add 3 “cancer mutation”, smoking could add 10, etc. It doesn’t mean that the next cell generation will have all 4 reels come up cancer, in fact it is incredibly unlikely. But as those mutations and damage build up, and as your cells divide and divide and divide over the years, it becomes more likely.
That change over time of your statistical likelihood is exactly why cancer almost never happens at the same time is the exposure (carcinogens, smoking, radiation) except in rare cases (rapidly dividing skin cells after massive solar radiation damage, extreme nuclear radiation exposure, etc.).
