this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
377 points (99.5% liked)
Star Trek
1190 readers
2 users here now
/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!
Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!
~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.
~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!
~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hard to count - the war was fought with A LOT of nasty carcinogenic things. From lots of cigarettes, to omnipresent asbestos, to lead in basically everything, to exposure to cancer inducing germs, to radiation (radar!). And of course LOTS of alcohol.
It's a wonder the generation lasted that long and their offspring weren't mutants.
Very true. My dad lived into his 80s, but he grew up in London during the Blitz. Who knows what he inhaled as a kid. He ended up with severe frontal lobe dementia and ever since then, I've been wondering if I'm a genetic time bomb or that was because of all the stuff that was going into his body that shouldn't have been from ages 7 to 14.
Not only till 14 - until the late 70ies there was a LOT of shit going around and even through the 80ies.
But: I remember reading some studies that there might be a link to (even subacute) blast concussion and frontal lobe dementia as well as prolonged exposure to certain stress hormones.
I am unable to find where I read it, though.
Nevertheless you might be in the clear. Or get it from our own world of toxins(PFAS,certain nanoparticles)we don't understand fully so far. Or don't get it. And depending on your age there might be a drug available by then to slow progress down massively.(There are a few very good concepts in animal trials atm, if we are lucky we might have something available in 15 years).
I meant he was breathing in whatever was being pulverized into dust by the bombings in London from ages 7-14.
He was not, however, a smoker. Quite anti-smoking, in fact. Wouldn't even smoke weed- when he came to visit me in L.A. many years later, he was happy to try edibles, but refused to smoke a joint.
And yes, it was a lot of fun to get high with my dad when he was in his 70s.
Yeah,I absolutely got that, but simply wanted to point out that whatever he might have breathed in then could not been "much worse" in the grand scheme of things back then.
And, by today's terms everyone was a smoker back then - public smoking was so omnipresent back then (and cigarettes much more harmful - I just say asbestos filter) while todays smokers are exposed to less toxins, that even non-smokers would be considered low intensity smokers today in terms of toxins. Crazy, I know, but on the other hand I had 3 weeks of smokers cough as a child after flying Bangkok to Zurich as a child - in the row closest to the smokers section.(Thanks Swissair)