论文部分内容阅读
上次拙文《买单枪还是选三枪》发表后(见《家庭影院技术》第2006／04期),引来了不少“砖头”,在一些网络BBS上有少数“持不同政见者”对作者关于“三枪”不环保的观点愤而不平,“危言耸听”啦,“小题大做”啦,更有说笔者“根本就没见过三枪”啦,不一列举。笔者真的有点不明白了,假如你是一个“三枪”二手商人的话,那我肯定是无话说,挡了人家的财路嘛,或者你是三枪的拥趸感情上难接受扔几块“砖头”也是情理之中的事,但假如你是消费者的话,如此看待笔者的忠告就不可理解了……正如手机辐射引发脑瘤的争议一样,不管最终结论如何,手机的长期辐射对大脑的健康有影响是肯定的。而“三枪”对居室空气的污染同样不可掉以轻心,正因为它跟手机一样是长期的不确定因素的影响,就更要谨慎一些了。我说我的你听你的,信不信由你,还是那句话:事关健康,宁信有不可信其无。
After the last essay, “Buy a Single Gun or Choose a Three Gun,” was released (see “Home Theater Technology” issue 2006/04), a lot of “bricks” were introduced. There were a few “dissidents” in some online BBSs The author’s view that the “three guns” is not environmentally friendly is indignant and “alarmist”, “fuss”, and more to say that the author “has never seen three guns”, not to mention. I really do not understand a bit, if you are a “three shots” second-hand businessman, then I certainly have nothing to say, blocking the wealth of others Well, or you are three guns fans hard to accept throw a few “Brick” is also a matter of fact, but if you are a consumer, so I do not understand the advice of the author ... Just as cell phone radiation-induced brain tumor controversy, regardless of the final conclusion, the long-term cell phone radiation on the brain The health impact is for sure. The “three shots” on the indoor air pollution can not be taken lightly, precisely because it is the same as the long-term mobile phone with the impact of uncertainty, even more cautious. I said I listen to you, believe it or not, or that sentence: things are healthy, rather believe that there is no credibility.