Greg Boyles

What makes you think that corruption in society will be any worst just because there is a global science union? A disciplined and regulated science community, perhaps with some occasional corruption as with the rest of western society, has to be better than the current scientific wild west where scientists have no global responsibility for the escelating problems they contribute to causing. Now you are just starting to rant John. Gross exageration. My union suggestion is just that from what I know. Perhaps the model would be more inline with medical boards that regulate GP's etc. They seem to work well and don't seem to be particularly prone to corruption. I notice you are attemtping a racist slur John. Don't bother because I am not intimidated by it. And what about the increased long term squalor and misery that results from exascerbating over population. As far as medical aid goes you are only focusing on the short term improvement in the lot of a relatively small number of people in the third world. Perhaps if there was a global scientific board then you would be forced to widen your focus and look and the long term global implications medical progress. Not saying that it would or should necesarily halt it, but I am saying it might force you to be more active in pushing for compensatory research such as improvements in fertility control to offset the improvements in medical treatment. I.E. The scientists would insist that improved fertility control be rolled out simultabeously with medical improvements - mutually exclusive. John I am sure the union movement in the 1800s thought similarly when the Labour Party was formed in Australia. They also would have suddenly had to comply with party regulations if they wanted to be a member and gain signficant political power. All I can say John is that, if a global scientific boards was formed and you had to be a member and comply with its regulations if you wish to conduct serious research, then you would get used to it.......or find another job I guess.

It is not a problem as far as the medical boards go that regulate doctors and decide who is a fit and proper person to practice medicine and who isn't. If you don't have a system something like this then scientists can choose to operate out side the union, do as they please and not take wider responsibility for their research. And what we have now is pretty much a scientific wild west where there is little or no global accountibility for scientists.

I guess the UN climate change panel is the beginnings of such a global scientific union. But agian it is very narrowly focused and has nothing to say about the root cause of AGW: over population/over consumption. That is over stating it some what. They would have as much power to regulate births as the unions had power to alter government policy through green bans. And anyway regulating births, as in China, could only be a last resort if other fertility control measures failed. Perhaps you could setup a system within the scientific community similar to the no union ticket no job in unionised work places. You have to be a member of the scientific union in order to publish in journals and gain access to the peer review process. It would be totally independant of governments and the public and could not be vetoed by either. Such a system would do much to enforce discipline and wider responsibility on scientists.

True. So what is the cost/benefit of keeping millions more children alive that would otherwise die from malaria? What is the cost/benefit of signficantly altering the ecological balance for human population in the third world? This is a difficult question, especially if you are one with malaria, but it is a question that we avoid at the peril of the entire human race and western civilisation. The question is very easy to answer in the west because, for various reasons, our fertility is very low and reducing death from disease has less of an ecological impact.

My problem with the way the scientific community is at present is as follows.......... As I have said it is almost totally individualistic with no coordination and vetting of what is done. As you say it is amoral. Pretty much all the environmental problems we have result directly from science and technology being misused or over used by politicians. The response from the science community to the cries for help from idiot governments and naive general public is to implement more technology which inevitably gets over used or misused and leads to even bigger problems down the track. Don't you think that scientists have some sort of moral obligation to say "no" to them sometimes? I think they damn well do. An example - the erradication of malaria or AIDS etc. Do the scientists who develop and implement this sort of thing stop to consider the wider implications of doing this. The world is already grossly over populated. Do they consider what effect this will have on the long term well being of humanity when it exascerbates over population and causes large numbers of humans to suffer in other ways - starvation and genocide etc. Should they not live up to their responsibilities to see that the reduction in death rate that they cause is compensated for by a reduction in birth rate. The best that the science community has at present are ethics committies. But these are far to narrowly focused and rarely consider the long term and wider consequences of research. But then scientists and ethics committies will give you the usual cop out that we hear from politicians all the time "it's not my problem". Well maybe if there was a global science union then it would be their problem. Who better to wield such power than the highly educated generally athiest scientific community. They are in the best position to have a global focus on human affairs even if they currently do not exercise it. A good nucleus for the formation of such a global science union might be the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Rather than coming up with more ways to save water or generate new water from some other source to maintain the status quo in the Murray Darling Basin, they are advocating reduction in water allocations and winding back of the irrigated agriculture industry. Nothing would give politicians and the general public a bigger wake up call than if scientists starting saying "sorry but we aint gonna help you maintain your status quo any more".

Not quite correct. Only idiotic scientists would have such an argument. The argument among politicians would be over whether the mountain even exists. I reckon there should be some sort of global science union that all scientists are encouraged to join. The union would then wield political power by determining which government projects members will cooperate with. If individual members go outside the union policy then they should be ineternally disciplined. If it works rather effectively for political parties, to keep most members pulling in a given policy direction, then why should it not also work for the scientific community. Rather than the politicians always running on the assumption that technology/science will always provide fixes no matter how badly they f$%& up since the scientific community is rather individualistic, the union could say "hang on a minute, we don't think this is a good idea for the long term so we are not going to cooperate with you to implement this in the first place". Various unions have implemented 'green bans', why can't the science community also have a political arm that can also implement green bans.

But my philosophy is already embedded in public health system, at least for smoking. My father in law has been told that they wont give him an surgery to deal with his blocked coronory arteries unless he gives up the fags and stays off them. They wont bet their sacrce resources on a lost cause and I don't blame them even though it is my father in law. Living in fear has nothing to do with this. It is about living responsibly. With rights come responsibilities.

They choose to sentence themselves to slow and unpleasant death. I have little sympathy for them, including my inlaws......although will I never the less miss my father in law when he passes in the not to distant future. I am tired of hearing the hordes clamouring for their individual 'rights' when they have no interest in fulfilling their wider responsibilities. We are seeing similar sort of crap from Murray-Darling irrigators at present as the federal government clamps down on water allocations that were grossly over allocated in previous decades. Screw down stream water users, including the city of Adelaide that is relient on the Murray for their drinking water, as long as their cash flow in not effected. Some one else can make the sacrifices as long as it is not me x 1000s all the way along the basin. All petulant and irresponsible teenagers who need to be put back in their place. The federal government needs to start playing hard ball with them and smokers etc alike. I guess they pretty much are on both counts except they are not telling them to shut their holes as I would.

Sort of makes sense to me, as much as it can without my understanding the mathematics behind it. Although it is hard to get my head around the spacetime thing as to precisely what it means in terms of every day experience......no surprises there I guess.

1) This statement makes it obvious to me that you consider GR a mathemtaical construct that does not represent reality. 2) The word bend or warp are words of convenicene that help us to inderstand what is going on through an analogy. It is clear that a magnetic field cannot bend like a length of wire can, but what actually happens to a magnetic field is analogous to this. 3) A mathematical construct does not bend but merely describes what is happening in reality which you could label with any word if you wish - bend, warp, displace,.......what ever.

If skin cancer is proven to be a major drain on the public health system then yes, but I doubt that it is in the same league as smoking etc. Most skin cancer is easily and inexpensively treated when caught early. All you have really shown me is an article that 'proves' the current crop of smokers etc are a drain on public health system when they are treated for their smoking related chronic illnesses and kept alive for longer rather than being denied treatment and allowed to die. Please remember the paper I posted in reply that details how high blood pressure and inactivity are risk factors for Alzheimers, and my valid point that smoking and obesity are contributing factors to inactivity and high blood pressure. So reduction of smoking, heavy drinking and obesity may increase health costs in the short to medium term. But your article does not provide evidence that health costs will not fall signficantly in the long term as current smokers and obese die off AND are not replaced from subsequent generations.

If health care is run by private business then you can do as you please with your life because it is entirely user pays. If your lifestyle is detrimental to your health then you will no doubt pay accordingly for the treatment you end up receiving. But if you run a public health care system with a flat medicare levi then it is entirely unsustainable if large numbers of people destroy their health through smoking, alcohol and over eating etc. T herefore you have no choice but to introduce some of the feature of private health care funding if you are not to bankrupt the state in the long term. We want to keep our public health care but we do not want it to end up sending us down the same path as Greece. I would suggest a series of sliding scales at various income bands. The idea is to strongly discourage poor lifestyle choices through economic coercion rather than bankrupting low income earners. Perhaps the option should remain to stay on the minimum medicare levi if you smoke etc but then you only get drug based symptom management and pallative care at public hospitals - no major operations etc. I have not changed my mind - this is what I have been driving at from the beginning. I suspect you have simply jumped to the wrong conclusion.

No. You pay your own way for any EASILY PREVENTABLE diseases you end up with as a result of your lifestyle choices. And obviously it would be only worth while, as far as mass screening etc goes, to cover those disease that effect large numbers of people and require the most expensive medical intervention. That covers smoking, obesity and heavy alcohol consumption related diseases for which there is good evidence of a causal link. You could do the same for extreme sports and hoon drivers etc but the cost effectiveness for the health bottom line would be negligeable most likely. I said easily preventable diseases related to lifestyle choices, not diseases that people have through no fault of their own. And only those preventable diseases that would give the biggest bang for the health buck to eliminate. That would not include disabled children who are kept alive. It would be a purely exercise in economics and not in eugenics or what ever. Again it would be an exercise in economics. And footballers, hikers and what ever other class you care to throw at me do not impose a signficant burdon of the health system. To include all careers and all sports in the sliding scale, no matter how few people undertake them, would simply not be cost effective.

Well as with your naive and unworldly teenage children, the general public can't always have what they demand. Perhaps parties should start leading rather than capitulating and give the bipartison/tripartison/..... "no" to such demands from the voting public. Good for you. Yeah except when the health effects of smoking really kick in and their lifestyle and independance is seriously effected and when their death is approaching, most of them expect no expense to be spared in treating them and keeping them alive. Few take responsibility for their lifestyle choices and refuse treatment that wont buy them that much more time anyway nor make a signficant improvement in their quality of life. In fact many public hospitals in Australia these days seem to be refusing to give smokers coronary artery grafts unless the quit smoking. So they are increasingly being forced to comply if they wish to be treated in a way that prolongs their life. That has certainly been the case with my father in law any way. OK inversely proportional then

If it turns out to be true that smoking and obesity are risk factors for Alzheimer's, through high blood pressure and lack of phsyical activity, then that study of yours detailing increased health costs for non-obese and non smokers is flawed. This study for example suggests that the increase incidence of Alzheimers and other old age diseases, that increase health costs in your study, are the result of smokers quitting before they manage to kill themselves early. Rather than health costs increasing as a result of never having smoked in the first place. So I don't doubt that, if all the current smokers, heavy drinkers and obese people rectified their habits and lived longer lives then national health care costs would rise as they succumbed to other old age diseases that have an association with smoking, such as alzheimers. But once all these people died off and were not replaced due to hypothetical overwhelmingly succesful government stratgeies to discourage smoking, drinking and over eating then it would be difficult to deny that national health care costs would come down signficantly. http://www.nejm.org/...199710093371506 So smoking, drinking and over eating cessation would be good for national health budgets in the long term, as long as very low rates of the above bad habits can be maintained, but not necessarily in the short to medium term. It is not about peoples' attitudes towards these risk factors. It is about the collective effect of these risk factors on the national health bottom line. It is peoples' perogative to acknowledge or ignore risk factors as they please. But if it is determined that any particular risk factor that they choose to ignore is having a signficant cumulative impact on the health budget then they cannot expect to continue to receive publicly funded free health cared for any health complaints that result from them ignoring that risk factor. As I said, in Australia, the medicare levy should be a sliding scale based upon lifestyle as well income level. The amount of you medicare level should be proportional to the number and type of risk factors you choose to ignore and subject to a compulsory annual medical check up. I suspect this would be the strongest incentive for people to give away the fags, the excess grog and the excess food if there is at least the appearance of them having to be accountable for their lifestyle choices. Currently there is little or no accountability for lifestyle choices and when people are not accountable they tend to behave badly.

Please refer to my modified post above. Thought better of it and replaced all that stuff about my father in law with a study detailing the risk factors for Alzheimer's. Those risk factors are often linked to smoking and obesity.

I note these two opposing statements. http://www.neurology.org/content/45/6/1161.short Alcohol consumption is a risk factor for Alzheimer's. Lack of physical activity is a risk factor for Alzheimer's......smoking and obesity both reduce physical activity. High blood pressure is a risk factor for Alzheimer's......smoking and obesity are both factors in high blood pressure.

The idea is to get as many people as possible living longer and productive (as in paid work/volunteer work) and confining chronic illness to the last few years of life. If you keeping fixing the endless health problems of obese people and smokers, thus keeping them alive for longer, then clearly the national health bill will increase. But if you discourage the vast majority of people from smoking on a permanent basis, i.e. for generations, then eventually as the current smokers and obese people die off then the national health bill must surely reduce over time. I guess when it comes to smoking certainly, if you don't want the government poking its nose into your personal habits then you should consider forgoing your access to publicly funded health care. He who pays the piper calls the tune as they say. It will probably come down to a trade off between the reduction of heart attacks and ischaemic strokes and the increase in common cancers. http://www.nejm.org/...198705073161902 Abstract In 1980, 89,538 U.S. women 34 to 59 years of age, with no history of cancer, completed an independently validated dietary questionnaire that included the use of beer, wine, and liquor. During the ensuing four years, 601 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed among cohort members. Among the women consuming 5 to 14 g of alcohol daily (about three to nine drinks per week), the age-adjusted relative risk of breast cancer was 1.3 (95 percent confidence limits, 1.1 and 1.7). Consumption of 15 g of alcohol or more per day was associated with a relative risk of 1.6 (95 percent confidence limits, 1.3 and 2.0; Mantel extension χ for linear trend = +4.2; P<0.0001). Adjustment for known breast cancer risk factors and a variety of nutritional variables did not materially alter this relation. Significant associations were observed for beer and liquor when considered separately. Among women without risk factors for breast cancer who were under 55 years of age, the relative risk associated with consumption of 15 g of alcohol or more per day was 2.5 (95 percent confidence limits, 1.5 and 4.2). These prospective data derived from measurements of alcohol intake recorded before the diagnosis of breast cancer confirm the findings of several previous case-control studies. Viewed collectively, they suggest that alcohol intake may contribute to the risk of breast cancer. (N Engl J Med 1987; 316:117480.) Supported by research grants (CA 40356, CA 40935, and CA 42059) from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Willett is the recipient of a Research Career Development Award (HL 01018) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. We are indebted to the registered nurses who have made this study possible and to Barbara Egan, Susan Newman, David Dysert, Meryl Dannenberg, Laura Sampson, Marion McPhee, Martin Van Denburgh, and Karen Corsano, who assisted in the research. http://www.nejm.org/...198808043190503 Abstract In 1980, 87,526 female nurses 34 to 59 years of age completed a dietary questionnaire that assessed their consumption of beer, wine, and liquor. By 1984, during 334,382 person-years of follow-up, we had documented 200 incident cases of severe coronary heart disease (164 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 36 deaths due to coronary disease), 66 ischemic strokes, and 28 subarachnoid hemorrhages. Follow-up was 98 percent complete. As compared with nondrinkers, women who consumed 5 to 14 g of alcohol per day (three to nine drinks per week) had a relative risk of coronary disease of 0.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 0.9); for 15 to 24 g per day the relative risk was 0.6 (0.3 to 1.1), and for 25 g or more per day it was 0.4 (0.2 to 0.8), after adjustment for risk factors for coronary disease. Alcohol intake was also associated with a decreased risk of ischemic stroke. For 5 to 14 g of alcohol per day the relative risk was 0.3 (0.1 to 0.7), and for 15 g per day or more it was 0.5 (0.2 to 1.1). In contrast, although the number of cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage was small, alcohol intake tended to be associated with an increased risk of this disorder; for 5 to 14 g per day the relative risk was 3.7 (1.0 to 13.8). These prospective data suggest that among middle-aged women, moderate alcohol consumption decreases the risks of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke but may increase the risk of subarachnoid hemorrhage. (N Engl J Med 1988; 319:26773.) Supported by research grants (HL-24074, HL-34594, CA-40935, and CA40356) from the National Institutes of Health. We are indebted to the participants in the Nurses' Health Study for their continuing outstanding level of cooperation, and to Stephanie Bechtel, Karen Corsano, David Dysert, Donna Vincent, Meryl Dannenberg, Barbara Egan, Marion McPhee, Pradeep Rana, and Laura Sampson for their unfailing help. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-05282-001 Determined whether there was a relationship between low to moderate alcohol consumption (LMAC) and mortality (MT) in a 5-yr follow-up of 3 groups of elderly Ss (aged 65+ yrs): 2,694 Ss in East Boston, Massachusetts; 2,293 Ss in rural counties in Iowa; and 1,904 Ss in New Haven, Connecticut. LMAC was associated with significant lowered cardiovascular and total MT in East Boston and New Haven. Compared with Ss who consumed no alcohol in the previous year, the Ss with LMAC showed relative risks of total MT and cardiovascular MT of 0.7 and 0.6, respectively, in East Boston and 0.6 and 0.5, respectively, in New Haven. In Iowa, there were no significant differences in total or cardiovascular MT according to alcohol consumption patterns. For cancer MT, there were no significant associations with LMAC in any of the 3 populations. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

I disagree Captain. It is not about taxes to enrich the treasuries, it is about preventing states from going bankrupt due to unsustainable increases in health costs as populations simulataneously grow, along with public expectations, and become collectively older on average. My position would be puff and drink away as you please, but perhaps for Australians there should be sliding scale for medicare contributions depending on your preventable health risk factors. Those who smoke pay the highest medicare level while those who neither smoke or drink pay the least medicare levy, not withstanding abuse of other drugs.

The debate/argument with John Cuthber in the previous thread is piqued my curiosity about this subject and I have been continuing to dig around. A search in google scholar has revealed these two items, one published in 2004 and the other in 2006. Not the gradual change in position on alcohol consumption. http://www.sciencedi...376871685900018 This is entirely inline with John Cuthber's and other's position in here. A review of the literature on the positive benefits of light and moderate alcohol consumption suggests the following: 1. (1) Alcoholic beverages are food, containing approx. 7 calories per gram of ethanol. Beer contains small percentages of the recommended daily allowance of vitamins and significant proportions of the recommended daily allowance of trace metals and minerals. Wine, while possessing significantly smaller amounts of vitamins and minerals than beer, has considerably more iron. Both beer and wine have a favorable potassium to sodium ratio. 2. <A name="">(2) Coronary heart disease (CHD) seems to have a negative association with regular alcoholic beverage use. While some report a linear relationship, most studies agree that the relationship is U-shaped. Many studies have suggested that this inverse relationship is due to alcohol's effect of increasing levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), which acts in the removal of cholesterol from tissue. Other explanations for moderate alcohol's cardio-protective effect include: associated diet changes in moderate drinkers, the silicon content in wine and beer, decreased platelet aggregation and coagulation, and the ability to lessen stress and/or alter personality patterns associated with CHD risks. But note the subtle change in medical opinion in this item from 2006 http://onlinelibrary...4381.x/abstract This article provides an overview of the most recent evidence on health risks and benefits of alcohol consumption. Not only different types of dose-response curves but also other factors are important to consider when balancing health risks and benefits of alcohol consumption. The association between alcohol exposure and the risk of developing alcohol-related harm is multifactorial; there is a considerable individual variation in risk and a particular female susceptibility. Guidelines on drinking published over the last decade have become successively more restrictive. Whereas guidelines in the 19809 referred to "sensible drinking" or "responsible drinking," more recent guidelines refer to "low-risk drinking." For an increasing number of groups, the recommendation is to avoid alcohol entirely. The need to consider individual risk factors and specific risk situations is increasingly emphasized. The possible net beneficial health effects of moderate drinking may be achieved in less risky ways by refraining from smoking, eating less dietary fat, and doing regular exercise. A number of health risks of moderate drinking have been demonstrated. Yet, for the moderate drinker, various psychosocial problems— especially in the area of productivity and relations—are more likely to develop than organ damage. Also, the risks involved in giving general guidelines on drinking have been widely discussed. If these guidelines were generally accepted and followed, it could have negative consequences on public health. I put it to people in here that there is a gradual shift taking place in medical attitudes towards alcohol consumption from one of net health benefits for moderate consumption to one of no health benefits or net health detriment of any level of alcohol consumption. This would be similar to the shift in medical attitudes towards smoking in the decades prior as more and more data accumulated. Now I enjoy a beer and a wine sometimes as much as John probably does and the above wont result in me turning into a teatotaller. But I guess we need to not remain in a state of denial about it. Perhaps it will make us all think twice about how many glasses of wine or how many pots of beer we indulge ourselves in. I will continue to trawl through google scholar and post various items on the subject as I find them in here. But it is obvious, as it was with smoking, that there is not going to be a definitive study that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that any alcohol consumption is bad for your health. Merely a trend towards more and more restrictions on alcohol consumption by various medical authorities and researchers.

How can you be so sure that the idea of spacetime being a 'medium' of some sort, similar to what you are saying about a gravitational field, is irrational? If something as intangible and beyond our human senses as a magentic field can be warped and distorted, why do you consider it so irrational to say that the same may be possible of spacetime? Surely your starting point can only be your highly biased experience of the universe based upon limited human senses. This is starting to head into the realms of philosophy. Take the Flatland analogy for a 4D finite but boundless universe. In a real 2D universe you would not have squares and circles sitting on the surface of a sheet of elastic material, representing 2D spacetime, and taking up area on that surface. Rather the squares and circles would be embedded in and interwoven with the elastic material wouldn't they? If so how could they have any perception that their spacetime is a medium in which they are embedded and that can be warped and distorted along with their bodies. They would undoutedly say the same thing as you, that their spacetime is empty and can only be occupied but not warped or distorted.

OK granted I did say that early on based on a couple of pages I found. But as I tried to explain that, as I kept digging, it was becoming increasingly clear that there was inadequate research to 'prove' categorically that either any level or alcohol consumption was dangerous or that moderate levels of alcohol consumption are beneficial. I provided source to back this up that was considerably more than mere public opinion.....or are you forgetting about that one John? It should be quite obvious to you John that this stuff coming from the media is not just random public opinion like the benfits of drinking urine. It is obviously based on the position of credible and respected medical scientists etc such as David Nutt, and others in Australia presumably. David Nutt is professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and chairs the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs Well the rum essence I recently bought no longer contains alcohol. And that was the sort of product that the teenagers were buying apparently. Guess not many teenagers would drink peppermint essence. Similar reason to various low fat foods being more expensive than the regular version when they generally don't contain more expensive ingredients I suppose. If it was less expensive to produce alcohol free mouth washes then I guess they would take the opportunity to increase their profit margin.

I also said that spacetime might be similar to the atmosphere where physical objects displacing the air might be similar to massive objects warping spacetime, and you dismissed it I believe. Again we are just going around and around in circles here. You are starting off your new theory with your preconceived position that space can only be occupied and nothing else. If you start off with a preconceived notion then I don't see how you can be open to where the mathematics and research might lead you. It is not the way that good science is done as far as I am aware. The phrenologists from the 19 century went badly wrong for similar reasons as I understand it. Anyone else?

I don't see why bamboo would not burn well if it was dried. But it would also burn a lot more quickly than solid heartwood. Anyway my position is always that if demand exceeds supply to the point where you need to consider such questionable and desperate strategies then there are simply to many people and to much demand and that it would far more cost effective to reduce the population. Even successfully increasing the supply of wood or food or what ever is merely delaying the inevitable crunch.

It seems to me you are attributing the similar properties to a gravitational field that you have said is irrational to attribute to spacetime, i.e. that it is akin to a 'fabric'. If you say that a gravitational field is like fabric then why do you say it is irrational to regard space-time as a fabric that can be warped?