On the Nature of Things | Forum

Typhoon wrote:

HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.

There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Typhoon wrote:

HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.

There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:

HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.

There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.

Typhoon wrote:

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:

HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.

There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.

Would you elaborate?

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:

HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.

There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.

Would you elaborate?

"Cancer" is definitively not a specific physical entity. There are many pathologies called cancer which are not related. Breast cancer for example, has numerous different pathologies.

Nonc Hilaire wrote: "Incidence", however defined, is a crude a variable as one can imagine.

Nonc Hilaire wrote: What seems to be needed is exploratory studies of primate brains exposed to cell phone frequencies.

Typhoon wrote:

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:

HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.

There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.

Would you elaborate?

"Cancer" is definitively not a specific physical entity. There are many pathologies called cancer which are not related. Breast cancer for example, has numerous different pathologies.

Yes, however, what all the pathologies grouped as cancer have in common is the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body.

Nonc Hilaire wrote: "Incidence", however defined, is a crude a variable as one can imagine.

Incidence refers to a definitive diagnosis of some form of cancer. The process of diagnosising for a specific of cancer is well established now. Nothing crude about it.

On the other hand, one could well argue that treatment is still crude.

Nonc Hilaire wrote: What seems to be needed is exploratory studies of primate brains exposed to cell phone frequencies.

Perhaps. However, should there not first be evidence of a problem?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022599

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022599

Recall that the frequency of cell phone EM radiation is below that of ionizing radiation.

Azrael wrote:Nobel Prize in Quack-Pottery -- "If you have just popped in for the first time to read this little series, let me review the prize rules. First, similar to the Nobel Prize, this award is limited to still-breathing scientists. Additionally, they must have already won the Nobel Prize in a scientific field and they must openly embrace some form of anti-scientific or pseudoscientific quackery. This fantasy award consists of a gold-plated duck penis and the presentation of this award is accompanied by 42 quacks from an outraged duck."

Azrael wrote:Nobel Prize in Quack-Pottery -- "If you have just popped in for the first time to read this little series, let me review the prize rules. First, similar to the Nobel Prize, this award is limited to still-breathing scientists. Additionally, they must have already won the Nobel Prize in a scientific field and they must openly embrace some form of anti-scientific or pseudoscientific quackery. This fantasy award consists of a gold-plated duck penis and the presentation of this award is accompanied by 42 quacks from an outraged duck."

It’s now known that Diederik Stapel, the Dutch social psychologist who was suspended by Tilburg University in September, faked dozens of studies and managed not to get caught for years despite his outrageous fabrications. But how, exactly, did he do it?

That question won’t be fully answered for a while—the investigation into the vast fraud is continuing. But a just-released English version of Tilburg’s interim report on Stapel’s deception begins to fill in some of the details of how he manipulated those who worked with him.

From the report: “The committee concludes that the six young whistle-blowers showed more courage, vigilance, and inquisitiveness than incumbent full professors. ”

While it is becoming clearer how Stapel committed his fraud, the larger question is why. In separate statements, he explained that “I was not able to withstand the pressure to score points, to publish, to always have to be better,” and that he felt “a sense of dismay and shame” but that he was “sincerely committed to the field of social psychology, young researchers, and other colleagues.”

Apparently, he saw no contradiction between that commitment and systematically manufacturing results for years, harming his graduate students and co-authors along the way, and staring down anyone who would dare question him.

Typhoon wrote:The social psychologist who fooled almost everyone

It’s now known that Diederik Stapel, the Dutch social psychologist who was suspended by Tilburg University in September, faked dozens of studies and managed not to get caught for years despite his outrageous fabrications. But how, exactly, did he do it?

That question won’t be fully answered for a while—the investigation into the vast fraud is continuing. But a just-released English version of Tilburg’s interim report on Stapel’s deception begins to fill in some of the details of how he manipulated those who worked with him.

Typhoon wrote: The one person he did successfully fool is himself.

Farcus wrote:I don't get it? If he believed, how could anyone say his datasets aren't valid?

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

Typhoon wrote:Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

Typhoon wrote:Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

I think the proper response would be improving the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, but I don't see the political will for that in the US. Parents have good reasons to not trust the vaccine industry, and they overreact when their justifiable concerns are disregarded.

Alan Levinovitz wrote:In case you missed it, Oct. 7–13 was designated Naturopathic Medicine Week, according to a Senate resolution sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski and passed by the Senate with unanimous consent. Among the reasons the Senate cited:

Naturopathic physicians can help address the shortage of primary care providers in the United States.
The profession of naturopathic medicine is dedicated to providing health care to underserved populations.
Naturopathic medicine provides consumers in the United States with more choice in health care.

Mikulski and the rest of the Senate may be surprised to learn that they were repeating 60-year-old justifications of Chinese medicine put forward by Chairman Mao. Unlike Mikulski, however, Mao was under no illusion that Chinese medicine—a key component of naturopathic education—actually worked. ...

... But exporting Chinese medicine presented a formidable task, not least because there was no such thing as “Chinese medicine.” For thousands of years, healing practices in China had been highly idiosyncratic. Attempts at institutionalizing medical education were largely unsuccessful, and most practitioners drew at will on a mixture of demonology, astrology, yin-yang five phases theory, classic texts, folk wisdom, and personal experience.

Mao knew such medicine would be unappealing to empirically minded Westerners. He knew this because it was also unappealing to empirically minded Chinese people. ...

... First, inconsistent texts and idiosyncratic practices had to be standardized. Textbooks were written that portrayed Chinese medicine as a theoretical and practical whole, and they were taught in newly founded academies of so-called “traditional Chinese medicine,” a term that first appeared in English, not Chinese. ...

... The reason so many people take Chinese medicine seriously, at least in part, is that it was reinvented by one of the most powerful propaganda machines of all time and then consciously marketed to a West disillusioned by its own spiritual traditions. ...

According to the ACSH documents, from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, 58 percent of donations to the council came from corporations and large private foundations. ACSH's donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who's-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.

Typhoon wrote:Anecdotally, I know of a case wherein the elderly female patient was prescribed a "traditional Chinese medicine" despite having one functioning kidney.

The action was that of a diuretic leading to very low blood sodium - hyponatremia.

This caused her brain to swell leading to similar symptoms to a stroke.

Fortunately the attending physician was familiar with the situation and knew that her blood sodium level must be raised back slowly to avoid additional damage and death.

However, she did lose mobility, she is no longer able to walk.

The sad part was that there was no reason for her to take this "medicine".