ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus

Reply
Old 25th April 2020, 10:26 PM   #201
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
What a load of pseudo scientific nonsense.

You are comprehensively wrong, that is not how any of it works. Not even close.
You can fool some people with blunt statements of your opinion, but I doubt your opinion would mean much to anyone with any knowledge of radio emissions.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 10:45 PM   #202
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I thought it was thousands?

I did a search of pubmed earlier for non-ionising radiation. A quick scan through the first few pages (sorted by best match) got to about 150 before I started to get as many irrelevant ones as relevant, so I guess hundreds may be accurate.

Clicking on a few at random I found both positive and negative conclusions being reported. I could cherry pick a few like this one ...

Mobile phone base stations and well-being--A meta-analysis.

… to counter the ones you cherry picked, but what would that prove? Nothing.

I simply do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to judge whether concern is justified or not. I'm glad that the research is being done, and await the verdict of the experts that do.
There is a difference between cherry picking and choosing reliable consistent representative studies. I say you are the one doing the cherry picking because you are not evaluating and comparing the results.

It is thousands of studies, but probably only hundreds of really good ones.

The industry pays people to do studies designed to fail and then have them put opinion into their conclusions. The strategies are well documented and history has shown how effectively such tactics have been used by large organizations.

One thing I did was take the ICNIRP list of studies and examine them in detail. Of a very long list only about three mentioned possible cellular effects and the other spent a lot of time on heating. One must look at the organizations and the scientists who publish such articles and then the bias comes out. Some papers supporting the Telcos got blasted for their blatant lack of professionalism - yet those papers are still used in debate.

I have the intelligence and the ability to scan vast amounts of material in a critical way.

Do you have the humility to at least concede that I have some scientific support and am not some lone nutter?

I will give you the sites that are supported by scientists in the field. It is not easy to discern the truth among the massive disinformation campaign of the Telcos. It depends if you want the truth, or you prefer to believe the propaganda. The truth is not easy to live with but it may make you have a healthier old age. You may avoid early dementia.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 11:10 PM   #203
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You can fool some people with blunt statements of your opinion, but I doubt your opinion would mean much to anyone with any knowledge of radio emissions.
Your problem is that I actually know what I am talking about and you do not.

When it comes to telecoms and radio, I officially get a string of letters after my name. You, on the other hand, have nothing but superstitious nonsense to offer.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 11:11 PM   #204
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Do you have the humility to at least concede that I have some scientific support and am not some lone nutter?
No. For example, the proliferation of 3G, 4G and now, 5G in developed countries correlates with increased life expectancy, better medical outcomes and better general health in developed countries. You are claiming the exact opposite. You have an evidential mountain to climb.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 25th April 2020 at 11:15 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 12:07 AM   #205
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I whole-heartily agree. Except for what seems your implication that I have a problem in this respect.
You have repeatedly insisted that your intuitive perception that coincidences occur to you far more often than would be expected by chance, despite having no objective evidence to support that perception, is infallible. You have repeatedly claimed that you are far too intelligent to be subject to cognitive biases like confirmation bias and subjective validation, despite the fact that they were built into the way the human brain works by millions of years of natural selection.

Anyone who has studied probability theory in depth knows that our intuition is not only useless but downright misleading when it comes to finding patterns in noise. All sorts of erroneous beliefs, from astrology to dowsing to homeopathy, have been shown to be artifacts of our cognitive biases. Yet believers in them still refuse to accept this, and cling to the assumption that personal subjective experiences are a more reliable source of information than decades of careful scientific research. As long as you continue to take coincidences as evidence that you are receiving messages from god, despite having made no attempt to use the scientific method to test that conclusion, you remain a textbook case of what I described.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Do you have the humility to at least concede that I have some scientific support and am not some lone nutter?
I've said all along that I am open to the possibility that non-ionising radiation can cause health problems, it's not inherently implausible. If they do it's also possible that some people are more susceptible to them than others, and that you are one of those people. It's certainly something that should be (and indeed is being) carefully investigated.

But it's a long way from that to accusations of deliberate suppression and/or falsification of research, let alone the sort of crazy conspiracy theories currently circulating about 5G.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 02:43 AM   #206
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
(snip)

But it's a long way from that to accusations of deliberate suppression and/or falsification of research(snip)

The accusations have been done by scientists who have gone step by step to show how the industry and their organizations under their control have indeed misled the public. They have written public documents and sent them to the media to expose the "myths" that are being perpetrated by those who are supposed to protect us. They have done the research to show who controls what and where the funding comes from.

The suppression is easy to figure out. Given the vast amount of studies showing harm, show me a popular article that does not report it as authoritarian and leave it at that. What all the main stream media do is add an emotional piece of propaganda from a scientist with a bunch of degrees whose says "Bunkum". The average reader concludes EMF are safe and that there are nutters out there. Or scientists who got it wrong.

The falsification of research is not that the numbers or the methodology is fake, it is that there are statements as to intent, and then statements that are unsupported by the research. The peers who review are either in on it, or are themselves misled. Remember it is intended to give the appearance of a legitimate piece of research, and all but the real specialists in the field will simply accept it based on "authority".

There is no money trail, and no transcripts of meetings where these are set up. There are suggestions which filter down that should this aspect be researched and the expected result obtained it will be generously funded. In one case, this was set up to debunk the ex-partner of Henry Lai, and when it turned out to support Henry Lai, they turned on him and tried to wreck his career as well. And they made sure their attempts were well publicized so that universities would "get the message". Surely you are not so naive as to realize this is how many big Corporates operate?


Give me one of what you consider a "good" study on why emfs have no biological effect, and I will try to take it apart to show you how it is done. I will give you one I consider good research for you to critique.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 02:50 AM   #207
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Your problem is that I actually know what I am talking about and you do not.

When it comes to telecoms and radio, I officially get a string of letters after my name. You, on the other hand, have nothing but superstitious nonsense to offer.

__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 03:07 AM   #208
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Give me one of what you consider a "good" study on why emfs have no biological effect, and I will try to take it apart to show you how it is done. I will give you one I consider good research for you to critique.
I do not have the expert knowledge and experience necessary to correctly and reliably identify a "good" study or critique a "bad" one, and neither I'm pretty sure do you.

abaddon might, if we ask him nicely.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 26th April 2020 at 03:17 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 06:24 AM   #209
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I do not have the expert knowledge and experience necessary to correctly and reliably identify a "good" study or critique a "bad" one, and neither I'm pretty sure do you.

abaddon might, if we ask him nicely.
I am reluctant, because those are quite technical and it is inevitable that PS will totally bork them.

However, since you so politely ask, here is a 2019 review of the findings of 94 peer reviewed papers on the matter.

Pretty sure you will comprehend it and also that PS will not.

Have at it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 07:48 AM   #210
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I am reluctant, because those are quite technical and it is inevitable that PS will totally bork them.

However, since you so politely ask, here is a 2019 review of the findings of 94 peer reviewed papers on the matter.

Pretty sure you will comprehend it and also that PS will not.

Have at it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/
Oh, that shouldn't be a problem; PS has "the intelligence and the ability to scan vast amounts of material in a critical way." Or, to put it another way-

Quote:
I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 09:33 AM   #211
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I am reluctant, because those are quite technical and it is inevitable that PS will totally bork them.

However, since you so politely ask, here is a 2019 review of the findings of 94 peer reviewed papers on the matter.

Pretty sure you will comprehend it and also that PS will not.

Have at it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/
Thanks.

I'll give it a more in depth read later, but from a quick skim the takeaway seems to be "evidence inconclusive, more (and much better quality) research needed", which is the impression I've been getting all along.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 10:04 AM   #212
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Thanks.

I'll give it a more in depth read later, but from a quick skim the takeaway seems to be "evidence inconclusive, more (and much better quality) research needed", which is the impression I've been getting all along.
Yup. Also of interest is the field strength used in the research. Not remotely what one might encounter in the wild.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 09:55 PM   #213
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,771
Partskeptic, in a different thread here Gillius claims that the virus is a vast conspiracy to kill off all humans by 'Them', and he knows he's right because he has exposed the entire conspiracy by looking at lots of movies, thus you'd be wrong. How do you rhyme that with your theory?
Lukraak_Sisser is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 10:58 PM   #214
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,696
Is it too late for me to point out that occasional die-offs are not rare, but a damn near certainty. Thus, any prediction that claims one is coming "soon" cannot be falsified unless "soon" has some concrete meaning. One is always coming.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 11:28 PM   #215
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Partskeptic, in a different thread here Gillius claims that the virus is a vast conspiracy to kill off all humans by 'Them', and he knows he's right because he has exposed the entire conspiracy by looking at lots of movies, thus you'd be wrong. How do you rhyme that with your theory?
Gillius' hypothesis is also based on lots of (supposedly otherwise inexplicable) coincidences. The human tendency to attribute meaning to random chance is, I'm convinced, responsible for the great majority of irrational beliefs.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2020, 11:36 PM   #216
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,771
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Gillius' hypothesis is also based on lots of (supposedly otherwise inexplicable) coincidences. The human tendency to attribute meaning to random chance is, I'm convinced, responsible for the great majority of irrational beliefs.
I know, its just that we have two very certain doom prophets both claiming to certainly know the future who both base their predictions on cognitive bias and their own sense of superiority over the rest of us for seeing the pattern noone else sees.
However as they are contradicting each other I thought it would be interesting to point them out to each other. (Ok, so I'm a bit bored in lockdown)
Lukraak_Sisser is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 12:14 AM   #217
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I am reluctant, because those are quite technical and it is inevitable that PS will totally bork them.

However, since you so politely ask, here is a 2019 review of the findings of 94 peer reviewed papers on the matter.

Pretty sure you will comprehend it and also that PS will not.

Have at it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/

Thanks. This is a good start.

I skimmed the paper (which included noting a few key details) in 2 minutes. There is a lot a detail and I will need to delve into it to do a proper analysis.

But I can offer a quick critique. This is a key phrase.

The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6–100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact.

Now, spending a bit more time. The next key detail is that there are 125 references, and I looked at the last ones.

125 - Thermal (not relevant)
124 - FCC (they are not a political group)
123 - Dielectric properties of skin (needed for modeling but not effects)
122 - Absorption (blunt energy related to heating)
121 - Modelling absorption (says nothing about cellular effect but relevant to depth
120 - Human skin as antennae (need to see the relevance)
119 - Human exposure pulsed fields (need to check)
118 - Frequency dependence of heating (heat again)
117 - Dosimetry (always relevant)

Some of interest

101 - mitochondrion-dependent apoptosis (must check)
91 - Protein changes in macrophages (must check)
56 - Gene expression changes in the skin of rats
42 - Puffing of Giant Chromosomes
29 - Inhibition of the production of reactive oxygen species in mouse peritoneal neutrophils

3,4,5,6,7,10,11,15 are committees and organizations who are not unbiased.

I must look at the background of any of the scientists who appear to say it it safe and whose work is emphasized. And at the those who worry about effects.

The scientists who have studied the non-thermal effects of NRI have worked in pulsed fields (close to real life radiation) in 2G 3G and 4G. They have found harmful effects, and are warning that not enough has been done about 5G.

So the industry avoids the proof of harm by now exploring a new untested field. This allows 5G to be introduced before thorough testing by those who have found health issues in the lower frequencies.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**

Last edited by PartSkeptic; 27th April 2020 at 12:16 AM.
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 02:31 AM   #218
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Thanks. This is a good start.

I skimmed the paper
And there is your problem. I predicted that you would do so a few posts back and you did exactly as I predicted.

Tell me, did your god inspire me or did I know that would happen based on past behaviour?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 02:43 AM   #219
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
I am taking a brief break from home projects.

I do not know where my analysis of Abaddon reference will go. I will post my methodology and findings as I go so that you can see how I draw my own conclusions as to credibility.

This is a concern. The source of funding:

Author Contributions:M.S. and M.-O.M. have contributed equally to conceptualization, structuring, datacollection and analysis, interpretation of data, and all aspects of writing of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, Bonn, Germany, PO number 4806344812

Then I checked the authors. Myrtill Simko: papers can be found here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ezV_zlcAAAAJ#

And here is one of hers from 2007 where she clearly describes a mechanism for NIR induced DNA damage:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ld-Effects.pdf
…Conclusions
….In general, it is known that modulations of the redox homeostasis lead to diverse cellular effects by the induction of different pathways, which can be mediated by free radicals directly or indirectly. Modulations at the antioxidant levels or activities influence the redox status of cells quite properly, leading to the corresponding cellular responses. Directly induced DNA damages by free radicals undergo sufficient repair mechanisms. In contrast, indirectly mediated effects such as the induction of signal transduction pathways are not controlled by repair mechanisms and thus, the establishment of epigenetic effects is likely.
…We hypothesized previously that EMF exposure can cause acute and chronic effects, mediated by ROS modulations by three different pathways of free radical involvement in physiological and pathological reactions leading to DNA damage and therefore, to an increased risk of tumour development


And the other author who was a professor assisting her in earlier work of hers.

Mats-Olof Mattsson papers at https:
//scholar.google.com/citations?user=e159f-MAAAAJ&hl=en#

This one debunks the standard and frequently sued myth that NIR cannot cause DNA mutations. It was co-authored by Lennert Hardell who is credited with good research showing emf harm

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...s_and_cancer--
…Many discussions about a possible relation between mobile phone use and cancer start from the argument that the photon energy of microwave radiation is far too low to induce breaking of molecular bonds and thus exposure cannot directly affect DNA integrity. While this is obviously true, it seems to imply that because this is the case such exposures cannot be mutagenic. It must be emphasized that for low-level exposure to ionizing radiation only about 35% of DNA damage is produced by such direct effects, while the higher proportion is due to radical formation.
… Besides the fact that not even for ionizing radiation-induced carcinogenesis is a direct effect on DNA a necessary condition, malignant processes can be affected at a multitude of stages and thereby increase the risk of disease. Roughly, the process can be subdivided into the following stages: initiation (occurrence of a mutation, either induced or spontaneous), fixation (cells have to undergo divisions in order that the mutation will be fixed within the genome), survival (deviant cells or their daughter cells have to survive the life span of the organism), promotion (the clone has to grow to reach the neoplastic stage), progression (increase of malignancy, invasive growth, angiogenesis, metastases, etc.).


So what is the conclusion at this early stage. The authors have indicated harm in their early papers and have established their credential. Simko does a nice job on detail and explanation.

The question is: Have they been influenced to do this review in which they acknowledge it is too early to tell. The the Telco do their spin saying "See - no harm."

The study says:
...The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects
...Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.

At this point I wonder why Abaddon used this review. It seems to be indicating just what the anti-emf scientists are warning about - which is that an untested technology is about to be unleashed on the world in additions to the existing harmful technology.

I will do some more work later.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 02:51 AM   #220
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And there is your problem. I predicted that you would do so a few posts back and you did exactly as I predicted.

Tell me, did your god inspire me or did I know that would happen based on past behaviour?

Keep reading. I read your post after my post just before this one.

Your reaction of shooting from the lip is predictable by anyone of us.

I have told you how I operate. I do an initial skim. A quick analysis to gauge the effort required.

When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.

As Pixel42 points out. Intelligence also comes with experience. One has to know how to use it.

I disregard junk - such as those that who repeat stuff and are irrelevant. So far your link is not junk and I am giving it due process.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**

Last edited by PartSkeptic; 27th April 2020 at 02:53 AM.
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 02:57 AM   #221
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Keep reading. I read your post after my post just before this one.

Your reaction of shooting from the lip is predictable by anyone of us.

I have told you how I operate. I do an initial skim. A quick analysis to gauge the effort required.

When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.

As Pixel42 points out. Intelligence also comes with experience. One has to know how to use it.

I disregard junk - such as those that who repeat stuff and are irrelevant. So far your link is not junk and I am giving it due process.
Oh I know it is not junk because I have the professional qualifications to accurately assess it.

You do not. Any assessment you make will therefore be useless.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 03:27 AM   #222
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.
When I took the Mensa entrance IQ test I just did it, no strategizing seemed required. (152, in case you were wondering).

I'd just moved to a new area and it seemed like a good way of meeting interesting people, but I let my membership lapse after a year. There were no nearby groups so all I got out of it was the magazine, which seemed to be written by and for wankers.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 03:50 AM   #223
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
When I took the Mensa entrance IQ test I just did it, no strategizing seemed required. (152, in case you were wondering).

I'd just moved to a new area and it seemed like a good way of meeting interesting people, but I let my membership lapse after a year. There were no nearby groups so all I got out of it was the magazine, which seemed to be written by and for wankers.
Interesting. Never been a member, but I have heard they are a bunch of elitist tossers. No idea how true that is.
I did the test and got 156. So I beat you by four and I have no idea if that even means anything in the real world.

I am pretty sure that within my skill set, I could easily slap the snot out of you. I am equally certain that within your skill set, you would slap seven shades out of me.

So what do those numbers really mean realistically?

Not much, I think.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 03:52 AM   #224
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,805
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So what is the conclusion at this early stage. The authors have indicated harm in their early papers and have established their credential. Simko does a nice job on detail and explanation.

The question is: Have they been influenced to do this review in which they acknowledge it is too early to tell. The the Telco do their spin saying "See - no harm."
Hahaha, way to do science! Just only select the authors that are "untainted" because they wrote something you agree with.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 04:12 AM   #225
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
At this point I wonder why Abaddon used this review. It seems to be indicating just what the anti-emf scientists are warning about - which is that an untested technology is about to be unleashed on the world in additions to the existing harmful technology.
I imagine he chose it for the same reason I picked out the one I did from the list I got when I searched pubmed - it's a metastudy, and hence gives a better picture of the current state of this area of research than any single paper would do.

I note your assumption that abaddon cherry picked this link in support of a particular, predetermined, position, and point out that this is simply projection on your part.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 05:29 AM   #226
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,803
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Interesting. Never been a member, but I have heard they are a bunch of elitist tossers. No idea how true that is.
I did the test and got 156. So I beat you by four and I have no idea if that even means anything in the real world.

It means that you’re (both) pretty good at doing IQ tests.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 06:59 AM   #227
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,773
Sidetracking a little, I never tried the Mensa test nor did I ever bother to join Mensa. I took the GRE back in 1967, and my score more than qualified me for Mensa without their test. So, I think, did an earlier SAT, but I never bothered to check. I knew a couple of Mensa members back in college days, and yes, they were arrogant tossers.

But I have to throw in one small comment in PS's favor, whether or not it's relevant to any of the nonsense he spouts here. The technique for taking such tests has some validity. Tests such as the SAT and GRE are calculated, in part, on the presumption that you will start at the beginning and never quite finish. If you break it up and skim first, you may do better. I always did pretty well on such tests, because I would first go through them and do the easiest answers right to the end. Then I'd go back and do the ones that I felt I could do, but that would take some time. After that I'd go back and do the really tough ones, including those I might have to guess.

It worked pretty well. As far back as third grade in the 1950's, we had the "Iowa Tests" every year in school, and they were in the same pattern. One of the great lessons I learned was in third grade. In that pre-computer age the teachers themselves scored the test using a template over the answer sheet. When the teacher saw an absolutely horrible result on mine, she was unconvinced that I was that stupid, and moved the template a space. I had lost count and filled in the wrong boxes. She cut me some slack, and told me what had happened, and for ever after, I made sure to check that I had not accidentally skipped to the wrong line on the answer sheet. If you check the numbers every five or ten questions, you always have time for corrections. I suspect that some people don't do this, and end up with bad scores simply because of bad technique.

OK, now back to the nonsense. Remember, PS, that skimming first is only valid if you then go back and finish the job!
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 07:34 AM   #228
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,180
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Hahaha, way to do science! Just only select the authors that are "untainted" because they wrote something you agree with.
It does speed up the process for fully self -deluding one's self. Other ways might take years.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 04:26 PM   #229
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,875
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I know, its just that we have two very certain doom prophets both claiming to certainly know the future who both base their predictions on cognitive bias and their own sense of superiority over the rest of us for seeing the pattern noone else sees.
However as they are contradicting each other I thought it would be interesting to point them out to each other. (Ok, so I'm a bit bored in lockdown)
At least Gret Thunberg has given us 8-11 years.
I’m going with her numbers.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 08:10 PM   #230
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It means that you’re (both) pretty good at doing IQ tests.
Ha. Likely true. Still not sure what utility such a metric actually has.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 08:27 PM   #231
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Sidetracking a little, I never tried the Mensa test nor did I ever bother to join Mensa. I took the GRE back in 1967, and my score more than qualified me for Mensa without their test. So, I think, did an earlier SAT, but I never bothered to check. I knew a couple of Mensa members back in college days, and yes, they were arrogant tossers.

But I have to throw in one small comment in PS's favor, whether or not it's relevant to any of the nonsense he spouts here. The technique for taking such tests has some validity. Tests such as the SAT and GRE are calculated, in part, on the presumption that you will start at the beginning and never quite finish. If you break it up and skim first, you may do better. I always did pretty well on such tests, because I would first go through them and do the easiest answers right to the end. Then I'd go back and do the ones that I felt I could do, but that would take some time. After that I'd go back and do the really tough ones, including those I might have to guess.

It worked pretty well. As far back as third grade in the 1950's, we had the "Iowa Tests" every year in school, and they were in the same pattern. One of the great lessons I learned was in third grade. In that pre-computer age the teachers themselves scored the test using a template over the answer sheet. When the teacher saw an absolutely horrible result on mine, she was unconvinced that I was that stupid, and moved the template a space. I had lost count and filled in the wrong boxes. She cut me some slack, and told me what had happened, and for ever after, I made sure to check that I had not accidentally skipped to the wrong line on the answer sheet. If you check the numbers every five or ten questions, you always have time for corrections. I suspect that some people don't do this, and end up with bad scores simply because of bad technique.

OK, now back to the nonsense. Remember, PS, that skimming first is only valid if you then go back and finish the job!
It's a long time since I sat such a test, but I used a "3 pass" methodology.

Pass 1: Low hanging fruit. Skim all the questions fast. Only answer those questions for which you readily have the answer. Any uncertainty means skip it for now.

Pass 2: The ones you can work out. These take a little more time, but you know you can figure them out. That's OK because you already have pass 1 in the bag and the time pressure is reduced.

Pass 3: This is the catch all for any outstanding unanswered questions. If you can work it out, great. If not, simply guess some answer before the time allowed elapses.

This is what provokes me to question the validity of such tests. If a simple iterative technique can drastically alter ones score, what exactly is being measured?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 10:08 PM   #232
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,773
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It's a long time since I sat such a test, but I used a "3 pass" methodology.

Pass 1: Low hanging fruit. Skim all the questions fast. Only answer those questions for which you readily have the answer. Any uncertainty means skip it for now.

Pass 2: The ones you can work out. These take a little more time, but you know you can figure them out. That's OK because you already have pass 1 in the bag and the time pressure is reduced.

Pass 3: This is the catch all for any outstanding unanswered questions. If you can work it out, great. If not, simply guess some answer before the time allowed elapses.

This is what provokes me to question the validity of such tests. If a simple iterative technique can drastically alter ones score, what exactly is being measured?
Yes, I did the same triage. I don't recall that anyone ever suggested it. So perhaps there is a validity to those tests after all, if there's some intelligence involved in figuring out how to take them. It's pretty clear most did not, given the volume of groans when the proctor said "pencils down," and the grumbling about not being able to finish. I didn't exactly finish either, but I'd always gotten to the end at least once.

I suspect that the iterative technique can elevate a score up to a point, but not if you actually don't know the answers. It probably saved me from utterly bombing the math portion but I never did very well.

But you're right of course that while one can suppose that a good score means at least something, a bad one can mean anything from an actual lousy student to a person who doesn't do well on that kind of test, or someone who just screwed up the answer sheet.

I'm reminded of a notorious case recently (I think there was a thread on it here) about a student who got a poor score, retook the test and got a good score, and was disqualified over the difference. Of course some of the issue is presumably that she crammed and learned some tricks, but it's hubris on the part of the testers to presume that a huge variation can't just be a matter of chance, or attitude, or simply not making huge mistakes like putting the answers in the wrong spaces.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 11:26 PM   #233
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.
IQ tests mean nothing. They have no practical use in the real world and the result really only "matters" at Mensa meetings. At best they measure a person's ability to solve puzzles. At worst they are random.

I maxed out the initial Mensa test and was invited to a second test to establish my score more precisely than ">155". I didn't go. There was no point.

I took it from the top, skipped questions that was not immediately obvious (most were to be frank), and circled back to the ones I skipped at first. I spent the last 5 minutes building stick men with pencils.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 01:16 AM   #234
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I imagine he chose it for the same reason I picked out the one I did from the list I got when I searched pubmed - it's a metastudy, and hence gives a better picture of the current state of this area of research than any single paper would do.

I note your assumption that abaddon cherry picked this link in support of a particular, predetermined, position, and point out that this is simply projection on your part.
Where do I criticize and assume that the paper was cherry picked? You are an intelligent person. or are you misreading something I wrote.

I was careful to take a neutral position, although my initial skimming was informed by my knowledge of the industry.

Before I proceeded to look deeper into the paper I looked at various anti-emf sites that tout the latest research. I could not find much except reviews and opinion.

I agree that choosing a review was a good way to go. And I do not think that the authors are biased one way or the other. I do think that the Telcos were aware of the fact that there are NO studies which are clear in terms of MMW effects, and certainly no epidemiological studies other than anecdotal, and were happy to get the result they funded.

If I was a Telco executive I would want such a "honest" study so that the company would have "plausible deniability" in investing in and expanding the 5G network.

The problem is that 5G requires an equally massive investment in 4G and other MW technologies, and these DO have studies showing harm. When I suggested that we each choose a paper, I was going for the science showing harm in these areas.

So far the alarm about 5G is that it is unknown and untested, and that it is in the same position of 2G, 3G and 4G were at the time they were being rolled out.

Let me give an example which would be difficult to prove in a study but should be given consideration as a potential concern. The penetration of the 6 to 60 Ghz waves would be shallower that the 0.8 to 2.5 Ghz and we could consider it to be a skin effect. The review paper looks at skin studies.

Where would one find corona viruses as they are passed from one creature or human to the other. On the surface where they have massive exposure. The possibility for mutation is greatly increased. How exposed are our nasal and throat passages to MMW? Would the cells on the surfaces be affected? It is likely. You will agree that the human race is facing exponential increases in viral threats due to over-population.

The activation of the Wuhan 5G network a month or two before the corona virus start could be seen as coincidence. Some say God works using coincidence. It could be seen as a warning. But that is my opinion.

Check the documentary on Netflix called "Corona Virus explained".
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 01:29 AM   #235
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It's a long time since I sat such a test, but I used a "3 pass" methodology.

Pass 1: Low hanging fruit. Skim all the questions fast. Only answer those questions for which you readily have the answer. Any uncertainty means skip it for now.

Pass 2: The ones you can work out. These take a little more time, but you know you can figure them out. That's OK because you already have pass 1 in the bag and the time pressure is reduced.

Pass 3: This is the catch all for any outstanding unanswered questions. If you can work it out, great. If not, simply guess some answer before the time allowed elapses.

This is what provokes me to question the validity of such tests. If a simple iterative technique can drastically alter ones score, what exactly is being measured?
You have "qualified" yourself as intelligent. Intelligent people know that tests are used throughout life and that the result is important. I had a widely varied career and I did some part-time lecturing to people wanting to qualify as a professional engineer, and to some Technikon students studying C++. One of the things I taught them was exam technique.

When I was in my early twenties I would have just started at the beginning and used sheer brain power. But when I was 50 I had the advantage of experience.

I also had the advantage of doing puzzles and tests similar to IQ tests. It is known that one can study IQ tests and thus prepare. If getting high marks is important then one does so. High marks for myself were like unnecessary work.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 01:44 AM   #236
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
I am going to give this articles as my "study" of the harm. The reason is that it is an excellent and accurate summary of the risks of electrsmog. I know the references and can access them for anyone who is serious about wanting to know.

This article is cause for concern. The industry knows the harm and is covering up.

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...investigation/

...Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA.

...Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”

...Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage.

...Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.

...When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did.

...The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation.

...The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,”

...Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world.

...Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer.

...To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.)
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 01:55 AM   #237
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,727
I would add that I have some experience of "corporate think".

The company I worked for in SA when I was in my 20s got a large contract for cable installation at a shipping port. I was tasked with approving the installation. The cables ALL failed. I went to a drum of cable and it failed as well. I cut off a length and discovered it was badly made.

I was asked to attend a top level meeting and to present my findings. After 3 minutes, the CEO cut me off and said they had no argument with my findings. The problem was not the testing but how to get the customer to accept the cable.

In hindsight I reckon they got the contract by having the customer put a requirement for water immersion in, and then cheated on the manufacture. When they got caught they had the answer. That the cable tunnels would never be subjected to floods and water ingress.

This same Swedish company got around government regulation in "clever" ways. No company could have more than 49 percent foreign ownership. So they set up 3 domestic companies and had 49% ownership in each. Then each owned 51 percent of one of the others in a ring of A to B to C to A.

The same company was able to claim "Made in the USA" in Swedish products by importing the goods and putting a Made in USA sticker on the goods. The accounting showed that this "value added" (the label) was more than 50% the cost of the goods to be sold.

And yet posters here are not skeptics when it comes to accepting the corporate spin.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**

Last edited by PartSkeptic; 28th April 2020 at 01:58 AM.
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 02:48 AM   #238
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Where do I criticize and assume that the paper was cherry picked?
You wondered why abaddon chose a paper which you perceive to be supporting your position, so you were clearly expecting it to support what you assume to be his.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 03:10 AM   #239
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

And yet posters here are not skeptics when it comes to accepting the corporate spin.
Great "logic": "Some company was bad 40 years ago therefore all companies are bad till eternity especially the ones I (and only I) point to."
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 03:16 AM   #240
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
You wondered why abaddon chose a paper which you perceive to be supporting your position, so you were clearly expecting it to support what you assume to be his.
My position is pretty straightforward. The research and hence the evidence is simply not there to support the kind of wild claims made by PS.

While it is remotely possible that there exists some subset of humankind which is unexpectedly sensitive to NIR (or any species really) such effect has never been demonstrated consistently. Correlation is not causation.

To illustrate, consider the daily fail list of claims about what causes cancer.

http://thetownend.com/index.php?topic=38270.0;wap2

Eliminate all of those list items from your own life and consider where you end up.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.