Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: why does everything cause cancer?

I advise you your 'above 0% in 5 miniutes rule' is wrong. Many ideas are difficult to grasp. Newton's ideas would never have gotten anywhere if people only gave them 5 minutes.

=====

The 5 minutes are not for you to convince me you are completely correct - all you have to do in that time is convince me that there is the faintest glimmer of a tiny possibility that you are correct. Even Newton would have been up to that task, so if you can't do it then I reserve the right to remain of the opinion that what you are claiming is false.

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

Fine by me. I don't want to convince you. You can keep your 5 minutes. Don't click on those links!

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

The most counter intuitive aspect of this problem involving new ideas is that people will strictly oppose spending anytime checking the other sides sources, giving the reason it would be a waste of time, but these same people will readily spend hundreds of hours arguing.
The other thing I find is that once they look at the source, the very often immediately convert. The trick is getting them to look at it. This is done by waiting till they're bored. Then sneak it on them. Just say 'here look at this' without telling them what it is. Of course, if they're on the ball they might see what it is straight away, but because their confrontational frame of mind hasn't been aroused they often give it a chance.
=====

There are also videos out there on the web "proving" that 9-11 was an inside job and that NASA never sent men to the moon. Do you believe those things just because someone made a video about it and put it on the internet?

To paraphrase Lee, if these things cannot pass cursory scrutiny they will definitely fail once we get the big-gun analytical tools out.

Is it just me or is the cerebrally contrarian bent of this site and forum now attracting more and more net.kooks?

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

Nope, I believe them based on the evidence and arguements they expound. 911 inside job, yes. Fake moon landing, no.

I take it you haven't seen zeitgeist the movie? Or moneymasters yet? Why am I not suprised. Stacks of well put together cases for all sorts of stuff are waitng for you at google video.
But people who abide by the non-scientific principle of never checking the sources will never accept or understand these theorys as vaild. But how can one judge something if they haven't reviewed it?
Do you grade your students without reviewing their work?

Going back to why I don't see much point in arguing these days. Science is not like maths. In maths arguing, and just arguing, can provide the solution. In Science though, it's possible to make a consistent statement which isn't correct. The correctness depends on evidence. What is evidence? Either you do the experiment yourself, or you believe some else when they say they've done it. And that's all it comes down to. In fact it doesn't matter if my arguements, or any one elses, are consistent.
Again, I go back to Feynmans lecture on QED. He kept having to tell the audience that it didn't matter if the theory didn't seem to make sense, it only mattered that it worked.
So, our problem is this, I present evidence, and you don't believe it. You say it's a lie, or a mistake. But to top it off, you haven't even looked at it.

All I can say to self consistent arguements like 'modern man lives longer now so age related disease are more prevelant', is that I don't see any evidence for this wrt to cancer. There are societys with long living people all over the world. But you won't believe this.
Not that it'll makes any difference to the closed minded, but the speakers in the links pander heavily to a vast array of critical questions. But it's all worth nothing if you don't believe their evidence. If you won't listen to me, then why are you going to listen to them?

Going back to what some critism I got about saying the youTube generation are more receptive. Yes, it's their willingness to believe anything, regardless of it correctness that allows these young people to accept the truth. It's a sorry world when the truth has to be passed on this way. But ( by example of Feynman )if the best scientists won't believe the best scientists when they expound the truth, what does that say about expounding the truth by pure arguement? It doesn't work. So why are you asking me to do it? Especially when, as I keep saying, your questions are answered in the links?

Re: Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

>> 911 inside job <<

The inside job can be partially blamed on the environmentalists. They forced the use of an "environmentally friendly" flame retardant on the metal beams in the World Trade Center. That flame retardant blew off where the planes struck. The bare steel beams lost their fire protection and failed earlier than they would have if the older, proven fire retardant had been used.

The two towers fell for different reasons. The north tower fell because the central core failed. The designer replaced the standard concrete protected core with two layers of drywall. This was to save weight. The impact easily compromised the core because the drywall didn't provide any protection. No one above the impact site could escape. That was the other "inside job."

The south tower's floor system failed first (bare steel beams soften in the fire). The plane struck off-center and didn't compromise the central core. There was a transmitting tower on the south tower (attached to the core). When the floors started to pancake, the tower doesn't immediately start to fall. You can see that the core was trying to resist the collapse. Too much weight from pancaking floors forced the core to follow. Had the proper fire retardant been used, the south tower might still be standing.

As usual, everyone except the environmentalist's meddling get blamed.

Jim

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

JamesV,

>> Is it just me or is the cerebrally contrarian bent of this site and forum now attracting more and more net.kooks? <<

It depends on who you're calling a "net.kook."

Jim

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

"Is it just me or is the cerebrally contrarian bent of this site and forum now attracting more and more net.kooks?"

It is almost as if denying the validity of AGW is becoming associated with the many ridiculous conspiracy theories out there. Mildly depressing, really.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

It is almost as if denying the validity of AGW is becoming associated with the many ridiculous conspiracy theories out there. Mildly depressing, really.
=====

I'd be particularly worried about that. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for questioning the AGW scenario. Being associated with laetrile-proponents, 9-11-inside-jobbers, New World Order paranoiacs and the like will not help the cause.

Now, were I an AGW proponent, I could think of no better way to discredit the skeptics than to find a few high-profile skeptic sites and fill it with tin-foil-hat-brigade talk, but surely that's just my fevered imagination at work.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

The inside job can be partially blamed on the environmentalists. They forced the use of an "environmentally friendly" flame retardant on the metal beams in the World Trade Center. That flame retardant blew off where the planes struck. The bare steel beams lost their fire protection and failed earlier than they would have if the older, proven fire retardant had been used.

=====

Let's be fair here. I somehow doubt contingency for full-frontal impact from a widebody airliner was included in the design specification for the building. If the impact ruptured the fireproofing I'm not surprised - environmentally friendly or not. Being hit by hundreds of tonnes of metal and fuel travelling at 500mph is going to break stuff.

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

JamesV,

>> Let's be fair here. <<

Always.

You made me go back and look at the Nova/PBS video "Why the Towers Fell." I obviously shouldn't depend on my memory. The TV tower was on the north building. It started dropping first, indicating that the core failed first. The south building's outer wall fails first (due to fire-weakened floor supports), while its core resists the collapse. (I got the failure reasons right.)

Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer on the project. He designed, ". . . for the impact of the largest plane of its time, a Boeing 707."

Both buildings survived the impacts:
8:46 AM North Tower Hit,
9:03 AM South Tower Hit,
9:59 AM South Tower Falls,
10:28 AM North Tower Falls.

The South Tower lasted 56 minutes.
The North Tower lasted 1 hour 42 minutes.

Recommendations include:
Harden Stairwells,
Strengthen Fire Resistance,
Protect connections,
Provide Back-Up Supports.

To quote Jonathan Barnett, an expert on fire protection, "In fact, until 9-11, I was unaware of any protected steel structure that had collapsed any where in the world from just a fire."

Jim