This is what makes me so sick about scientist today

[nec209]

6 cell phone safety wake-up calls

http://health.lifestyle.yahoo.ca/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=4711&channel_id=1030&relation_id=34757

 

I mean really science today is not about facts but short studies and want they think is bad or not . There are scientist that say EMF is bad and others saying EMF is only bad if it is ultraviolet ,x-rays ,gamas rays are bad and radio waves long wave and radio wave short waves , microwaves ,visible and infrared cannot go through the skin or brake down cells. Well the army have been doing re-search into using high power microwaves to do harm to the other army to burn their skin and pain has a way not to kill them. But really some scientist say EMF is bad and others say not .Some say he made stuff up.

 

I'm sick of short studies and claims .Spend the $1,000,000,000,000 have 3,0000 scientist spend 30 to 50 years do your studies than publish it.Nothing makes me more sick than fast studies and scientist debating that makes news for the non scientist .

 

There was time that science was fact and needed hard science to make the news .

 

Now you have scientist toady on talk radio talking about UFO's ,ghosts ,shadow people and stuff that artbell or coast coast AM talks about . Really we going down the drain fast.

 

It looks like we really will not know about EMF and electricity if it is good or bad for other 50 or 100 years.

[CaptainPanic]

If you don't like science, you can **** off. ^(*) Go back to your cave, make a campfire, and catch your own food. If you don't see the benefit of science, then frankly this world can do without you.

 

Because of science, you get to live to be 80 or older, you only have to work a lazy 8 hrs per day, you get your food from a fridge in a building around the corner, and your kids have a nearly 100% chance of survival.

 

That beautiful past you seem to be dreaming of was a time when people did not have the time to develop cancer, because they died long before that. Life expectancy was 50-60, but people didn't know any better. Most worked boring jobs in factories - doing the same every day. Or were you talking about the good old days of Newton, when the plague was still around, when 80% of the population were illiterate farmers taking a crap in a hole in the ground and having only 1 type of food on the menu?

 

If you don't like this world because nobody promises you to live to 100 without any diseases, if you want the nanny state to promise you all is safe - then take some LSD and dream on.

 

No, it is true, some products that are being developed are not 100% safe. But if you don't understand the science, then don't get angry at the scientists.

 

But this stupid consumers market with poor information is not the fault of the scientists. If it was up to us, you would get a booklet with all the facts with every product... but tests have shown that all the dumb consumers don't read all the crap anyway. When was the last time you entirely read the tiny paper that comes with medicines? Exactly. So stop complaining, thrown away your cellphone if you don't like it... and be angry at yourself... but not at me.

 

^(*) Apologies for flaming in the name of science.

Edited November 26, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[swansont]

I think your beef is more with science reporting, and specifically medical science reporting. There are many instances where the reporter does not make it clear what the scientific finding mean or even of they are credible. The cell-phone studies, for example, are not controlled experiments. They are data-mining exercises, and prone to errors because of irregularities in the sampling. The physics and biology tell us that the photons cannot cause the damage being ascribed to the devices. But most of the stories don't discuss that; sensationalizing the result wins the day.

 

A cursory examination of the claims will show that microwave weapons to cause pain is different from microwaves causing cancer. Saying that the photons can't ionize and damage DNA is not the same as saying that you can't cause local heating and inflict pain and cause thermal damage. The individual reading the science stories carries some responsibility for properly interpreting the facts.

[toastywombel]

If you don't like science, you can **** off. ^(*) Go back to your cave, make a campfire, and catch your own food. If you don't see the benefit of science, then frankly this world can do without you.

 

Because of science, you get to live to be 80 or older, you only have to work a lazy 8 hrs per day, you get your food from a fridge in a building around the corner, and your kids have a nearly 100% chance of survival.

 

That beautiful past you seem to be dreaming of was a time when people did not have the time to develop cancer, because they died long before that. Life expectancy was 50-60, but people didn't know any better. Most worked boring jobs in factories - doing the same every day. Or were you talking about the good old days of Newton, when the plague was still around, when 80% of the population were illiterate farmers taking a crap in a hole in the ground and having only 1 type of food on the menu?

 

If you don't like this world because nobody promises you to live to 100 without any diseases, if you want the nanny state to promise you all is safe - then take some LSD and dream on.

 

No, it is true, some products that are being developed are not 100% safe. But if you don't understand the science, then don't get angry at the scientists.

 

But this stupid consumers market with poor information is not the fault of the scientists. If it was up to us, you would get a booklet with all the facts with every product... but tests have shown that all the dumb consumers don't read all the crap anyway. When was the last time you entirely read the tiny paper that comes with medicines? Exactly. So stop complaining, thrown away your cellphone if you don't like it... and be angry at yourself... but not at me.

 

^(*) Apologies for flaming in the name of science.

 

Everything that he said, furthermore, just because you disagree with a study it is very simplistic to blame the entire science community. Its like if my light bulb burnt out, and I responded, "Stupid electricity! It never works any more, its all a bunch of nonsense!"

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

6 cell phone safety wake-up calls

http://health.lifestyle.yahoo.ca/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=4711&channel_id=1030&relation_id=34757

 

I mean really science today is not about facts but short studies and want they think is bad or not . There are scientist that say EMF is bad and others saying EMF is only bad if it is ultraviolet ,x-rays ,gamas rays are bad and radio waves long wave and radio wave short waves , microwaves ,visible and infrared cannot go through the skin or brake down cells. Well the army have been doing re-search into using high power microwaves to do harm to the other army to burn their skin and pain has a way not to kill them. But really some scientist say EMF is bad and others say not .Some say he made stuff up.

 

I'm sick of short studies and claims .Spend the $1,000,000,000,000 have 3,0000 scientist spend 30 to 50 years do your studies than publish it.Nothing makes me more sick than fast studies and scientist debating that makes news for the non scientist .

 

There was time that science was fact and needed hard science to make the news .

 

Now you have scientist toady on talk radio talking about UFO's ,ghosts ,shadow people and stuff that artbell or coast coast AM talks about . Really we going down the drain fast.

 

It looks like we really will not know about EMF and electricity if it is good or bad for other 50 or 100 years.

 

I hope you also know there have been crack-pot scientists around since the birth of science. Do you not remember the labotomy or the vast implementation of electro-shock therapy? What about Joseph Mengele, Andrew Ure, or Shiro Ishii? If you think it is going down hill now you should take a look back at our history, our past is quite dark.

 

One constant theme throughout history is that over time humanity grows stronger and more advanced. Life is better now than 50 years ago for most, and it was better 50 years ago for most than it was 50 years before that. It is really naive to make generalised statements like that.

[zule]

nec2009:

Firstly, if you consider “yahoo” as an accurate scientific source, I am afraid you are a little lost.

 

Secondly, I get your general idea of not liking current scientists, but I am confused about the details: On one hand, you complain about studies being too short; on the other hand you angrily say we will have to expect for 30 to 50 years to know about the EMF effects.

 

Demonstrating something suppose taking a very long way. In the past, scientists stated facts more easily. However, nowadays, a greater security is required to assert something scientifically. This supposes repeated tests.

 

Taking into account that the effects of an inducing-cancer agent take about 10 years to show and this is the time the mobile phones have been being widely used, it is now when we really are able to start to study if it is a relationship between the use of these ones and the increase in cancer.

[DJBruce]

6 cell phone safety wake-up calls

http://health.lifestyle.yahoo.ca/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=4711&channel_id=1030&relation_id=34757

 

I mean really science today is not about facts but short studies and want they think is bad or not . There are scientist that say EMF is bad and others saying EMF is only bad if it is ultraviolet ,x-rays ,gamas rays are bad and radio waves long wave and radio wave short waves , microwaves ,visible and infrared cannot go through the skin or brake down cells. Well the army have been doing re-search into using high power microwaves to do harm to the other army to burn their skin and pain has a way not to kill them. But really some scientist say EMF is bad and others say not .Some say he made stuff up.

 

I'm sick of short studies and claims .Spend the $1,000,000,000,000 have 3,0000 scientist spend 30 to 50 years do your studies than publish it.Nothing makes me more sick than fast studies and scientist debating that makes news for the non scientist .

 

There was time that science was fact and needed hard science to make the news .

 

Now you have scientist toady on talk radio talking about UFO's ,ghosts ,shadow people and stuff that artbell or coast coast AM talks about . Really we going down the drain fast.

 

It looks like we really will not know about EMF and electricity if it is good or bad for other 50 or 100 years.

 

Is it not the least bit hypocritical that you blast scientists for saying what they think, thus doing exactly what you say you dislike about science.

 

That being said I think you are confusing what most respectable people in the scientific community consider science. For example, published article in respectable journal that has been peer reviewed and replicated, science, the doctor on the TV saying this magical root will make me last longer in bed, not science. Also in my opinion any survey or scientific discussion viewed on the TV, heard on the radio, or read on the Internet must at best be taken with a large grain of salt until the validity of the source is found.

 

As for long term studies, not all products need long term studies. If a new medication was found to cure cancer, and could successfully be tested in a few years would it not be unethical to deny the dieing access to this drug simply because you wanted to run a 50 year study, to prove what could have been found in the first 5-10.

 

Also I will accept your ONE TRILLION DOLLAR grant, and will conduct a 50 year study. Ask that you pay fully up front though, and make the check payable to DJBruce Labs.

[CharonY]

If a new medication was found to cure cancer, and could successfully be tested in a few years would it not be unethical to deny the dieing access to this drug simply because you wanted to run a 50 year study, to prove what could have been found in the first 5-10.

 

This is kind of off topic, but this is actually quite an interesting point. The problem is, of course that without extensive studies it is hard to figure out if a treatment really cures cancer, or whether it was just an isolated event in the lab. Of course patients with terminal cancer are prime candidates for the early rounds for clinicals as in principle they can only benefit from it. In addition, the routine timeline for clinical trials is around 6-8 years. So 50 years would probably include the discovery of a substance with yet unknown function. In fact I heard of examples of the identification of proteins that were identified around 40 years ago and are now undergoing phase II trials...

[nec209]

If you don't like science, you can **** off. (*) Go back to your cave, make a campfire, and catch your own food. If you don't see the benefit of science, then frankly this world can do without you.

 

Because of science, you get to live to be 80 or older, you only have to work a lazy 8 hrs per day, you get your food from a fridge in a building around the corner, and your kids have a nearly 100% chance of survival.

 

That beautiful past you seem to be dreaming of was a time when people did not have the time to develop cancer, because they died long before that. Life expectancy was 50-60, but people didn't know any better. Most worked boring jobs in factories - doing the same every day. Or were you talking about the good old days of Newton, when the plague was still around, when 80% of the population were illiterate farmers taking a crap in a hole in the ground and having only 1 type of food on the menu?

 

If you don't like this world because nobody promises you to live to 100 without any diseases, if you want the nanny state to promise you all is safe - then take some LSD and dream on.

 

No, it is true, some products that are being developed are not 100% safe. But if you don't understand the science, then don't get angry at the scientists.

 

But this stupid consumers market with poor information is not the fault of the scientists. If it was up to us, you would get a booklet with all the facts with every product... but tests have shown that all the dumb consumers don't read all the crap anyway. When was the last time you entirely read the tiny paper that comes with medicines? Exactly. So stop complaining, thrown away your cellphone if you don't like it... and be angry at yourself... but not at me

 

(*) Apologies for flaming in the name of science. .

 

First finish detoxing from meth before you type and second read my post again and tell me where I'm bashing science or scientist

 

That me type it again for the illiterate. I'm not bashing science or scientist and I say again I'm not bashing science or scientist . I'm bashing the short studies that lead to false reporting or deabtes among scientist do to short studies where is the long and repeated studies that will clear up the false reporting or deabtes .

 

The subject on the other had here on the EMF and electricity like on power lines or in the wall do harm to the body is debate among scientist do to we need more studies and repeated and longer studies.The WHO seems to jump on these topics on EMF and electricity making it sound like proven fact not saying this is a controversial topic.And non scientist do not know about this at all.

 

The media and WHO likes to jump on these short studies that scientist are working on and say it is fact and than years later scientist prove if it is true or not and this makes me sick.Some times scientist should not say any thing to they do more studies and repeated and longer studies to get hard facts on the topic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think your beef is more with science reporting, and specifically medical science reporting. There are many instances where the reporter does not make it clear what the scientific finding mean or even of they are credible. The cell-phone studies, for example, are not controlled experiments. They are data-mining exercises, and prone to errors because of irregularities in the sampling.

 

What do you mean by not controlled experiments but data-mining

 

 

 

The physics and biology tell us that the photons cannot cause the damage being ascribed to the devices. But most of the stories don't discuss that; sensationalizing the result wins the day.

 

I thought gamma rays and x-rays are the only thing in EM spectrum than cam brake down cells or DNA.

 

Most talk about the type of radiation like is it radio wave or x-ray and the strength and how much radiation.

 

In school we learn that gamma rays and x-rays are a bad type of radiation and going to doctor getting too many x-rays is bad.

 

Keep in mind smoking does not = cancer, too many x-rays does not = cancer, eating bad food does not = cancer. It just increasess your risk over time. There are some people that can smoke all their life and not get cancer and other people smoke and in their 30's or 40's get cancer.

 

We learn in school that gamma rays and effects of nuclear explosions and too many x-rays is really bad . But there is little talk on the other parts of the EM spectrum or electricity if it is bad.

 

 

A cursory examination of the claims will show that microwave weapons to cause pain is different from microwaves causing cancer. Saying that the photons can't ionize and damage DNA is not the same as saying that you can't cause local heating and inflict pain and cause thermal damage. The individual reading the science stories carries some responsibility for properly interpreting the facts.

 

The thing is the type of radiation, strength and how much radiation. I think the problem is some think that too much microwaves or spending 3 years non stop in front it = cancer. Getting hit by microwave weapons for 10 minutes will not cause cancer but getting hit by a microwave weapon for 2 years non stop = cancer!!!

 

A microwave weapon stronger than other microwave weapon = cancer. The understanding of the type of radiation, strength and how much radiation over time may be key to understanding this better.

[Mr Skeptic]

nec209, let me give you some advice: if a study does not tell you how many people were in it and also a numerical description of the effect, and the probability that the effect is due to chance, ignore it. It is not a scientific study. It may be based on the scientific study, in which case you can look for the original (details from the story, such as the scientist's name, will help with that).

 

As for electromagnetic waves. Some are ionizing radiation, which means they can damage the chemicals in your body (if in a medical context). Ionizing radiation is generally bad, unless you like damaged proteins in your body. Because the energy of each photon is related to the frequency (or the wavelength if you prefer), EM waves of a longer wavelength are composed of photons with lower energy. Visible light, for example, is an EM wave. Light is not considered harmful, but tell that to an ant under a magnifying glass. Radio and micro waves have an even longer wavelength than visible light, so each photon has less energy. Hence it would seem very unlikely that they would damage you more than light would.

[Mokele]

I'm bashing the short studies that lead to false reporting or deabtes among scientist do to short studies where is the long and repeated studies that will clear up the false reporting or deabtes .

 

You don't have the slightest clue how science works, do you?

 

You want long studies? Look around. Every one of the studies you disparage is long, well done, with adequate controls and rigor.

 

News flash:Sometimes things are complicated and subtle, and thus take more than one study to figure out. And we can't know how complicated things are without doing studies first.

[CharonY]

And also, when humans are involved often rigorous controlled environments are neither feasible nor desirable. In these cases even studies with thousands of subjects can see associations that are spurious or miss important clues because the sample composition obscures it. One will hardly find simple yes or no answers, but only mounting evidence for the one or the other. Over time.

The WHO's job is to give recommendations based on the data that is currently available. If new data suggests adverse effects it would be foolish to ignore it. Yet they generally give rather cautious advise. The media is complete other thing, though.

[nec209]

You don't have the slightest clue how science works, do you?

 

You want long studies? Look around. Every one of the studies you disparage is long, well done, with adequate controls and rigor.

 

News flash:Sometimes things are complicated and subtle, and thus take more than one study to figure out. And we can't know how complicated things are without doing studies first.

 

No becuse cell phone fad has only been past 15 years tops and if there was more studies and repeated and longer studies it would be fact and no debate in the medical community on if EMF or electricity is bad or not.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

As for electromagnetic waves. Some are ionizing radiation, which means they can damage the chemicals in your body (if in a medical context). Ionizing radiation is generally bad, unless you like damaged proteins in your body. Because the energy of each photon is related to the frequency (or the wavelength if you prefer), EM waves of a longer wavelength are composed of photons with lower energy. Visible light, for example, is an EM wave. Light is not considered harmful, but tell that to an ant under a magnifying glass. Radio and micro waves have an even longer wavelength than visible light, so each photon has less energy. Hence it would seem very unlikely that they would damage you more than light would

 

That is what I do not understand if radio waves and microwaves are not ionizing radiation than how is it bad ? On less they are using high power .

 

And if I understand cell phones use low power much less than CB radio.If living by high voltage power line how can it brake down cells or DNA if it is not ionizing .The human body runs on small electricity and the cells turn the food and water into energy. At most it may disrupt the signaling process in the body.

 

But I don't understand if it is not ionizing how can electricity or EMF brake down cells or DNA ?When people have a heart attack they give people shock

[Mokele]

No becuse cell phone fad has only been past 15 years tops and if there was more studies and repeated and longer studies it would be fact and no debate in the medical community on if EMF or electricity is bad or not.

 

So, your idea is just "more"? And if "more" doesn't solve it? If we need to actually address dozens of confounding factors that are each only revealed by a subsequent study?

 

Never mind that in order to carry out your plan, we need to triple or quadruple funding to the NSF and NIH. That means you need to vote Democrat, and be willing to pay the higher taxes that more scientific study requires.

 

And what if one of your studies has a fatal flaw in it's design? You just put all your eggs in one basket, now have no good information, and just flushed $30,000,000 down the toilet (because yes, large scale medical studies cost that much).

 

 

 

Frankly, this whole thread boils down to you having a temper tantrum like a whining, impatient toddler.

 

Science takes time, and answering a question fully often takes multiple studies. Deal with it, or go live in a cave.

[swansont]

First finish detoxing from meth before you type and second read my post again and tell me where I'm bashing science or scientist

 

I think it started with the title, "This is what makes me so sick about scientist today," followed by actual bashing of science.

 

"science today is not about facts but short studies" shows a misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not merely a body of facts; science is a process. It's very important how the data are collected and how the questions are asked and answered. And the simple truth is that many aspects of scientific inquiry start with a small experiment or study, to see if a more extensive experiment is warranted. So while it may have been inadvertent, you did bash science.

 

Further, a response about detoxing from meth is completely inappropriate, even in response to a strongly-worded opinion. Disagree with the opinion if you wish, but personal insults have no place in the conversation.

 

 

 

What do you mean by not controlled experiments but data-mining

 

They didn't do a controlled, double-blind study, e.g. giving one group a cell phone that was turned on and the other group a dummy phone that did not emit radiation. They looked at medical records and saw some correlation, but they had no control over other factors that might be the actual cause of the tumors — there's no way to really know.

 

 

I thought gamma rays and x-rays are the only thing in EM spectrum than cam brake down cells or DNA.

 

Most talk about the type of radiation like is it radio wave or x-ray and the strength and how much radiation.

 

In school we learn that gamma rays and x-rays are a bad type of radiation and going to doctor getting too many x-rays is bad.

 

Exactly. Cell phones do not emit x-rays or gamma rays. The emit radio or microwaves, which are non-ionizing. They cause heating, and at the power levels involved, negligible heating. You get far more radiation from the sun, albeit over a wide spectrum. Yet we only seem to worry about the UV portion of the sun's rays, and only worry about skin cancer (and for good reason). If cell phones are an actual problem, the sun should be causing tumors, too.

 

The thing is the type of radiation, strength and how much radiation. I think the problem is some think that too much microwaves or spending 3 years non stop in front it = cancer. Getting hit by microwave weapons for 10 minutes will not cause cancer but getting hit by a microwave weapon for 2 years non stop = cancer!!!

 

A microwave weapon stronger than other microwave weapon = cancer. The understanding of the type of radiation, strength and how much radiation over time may be key to understanding this better.

 

What is the mechanism? That's one question that needs to be answered for this to be science rather than sensationalism.

[nec209]

So, your idea is just "more"? And if "more" doesn't solve it? If we need to actually address dozens of confounding factors that are each only revealed by a subsequent study?

 

No science is about studies and the more studies and longer studies it is proven fact . We had over 100 years to prove too much x-rays and gama rays are bad .Go back in time to 1920 and scientist will be scraching their head. When smoking was link to cancer the scientist where scraching their head. Now many scientist have done studies and is on every page cover every where.When nuclear power came around scientist at that time did not undestand the health risk.Over time they had much better understanding of the health risk.

 

If there was no studies or experiments than science would be speculation. Most science may start out has theory and prove the theory by doing studies or experiments to prove theory true or not.

 

And what if one of your studies has a fatal flaw in it's design? You just put all your eggs in one basket, now have no good information, and just flushed $30,000,000 down the toilet (because yes, large scale medical studies cost that much).

 

 

I don't think we need to talk about flaws in studies has everyone knows it here and most GOOD and I say again most GOOD scientist will factor in other elements of the study like food ,environment ,genetic flaws , age and so on.

 

 

 

Frankly, this whole thread boils down to you having a temper tantrum like a whining, impatient toddler

Science takes time, and answering a question fully often takes multiple studies. Deal with it, or go live in a cave

 

 

That me tell you some think I wiil gamble by life in 50 or 100 years tops the debade over EMF and electricity will be over.

 

Just like we understand AC ,DC , induction ,flying faster than the speed sound ,x-rays and gama rays ,rockets ,flying ,smoking ,bad food ,nuclear power . We understand this so well it is on every page cover and every scientist had chance to do studies and experiments to prove it wrong.And in the future we may ever do more studies and experiments to make these things work better and understand it more.

 

I don't know if you are kid or not and I don't want sound rude here but scientist most always do studies and experiments to prove or disprove other scientist and I hear it all the time .If there was study in next 4 days that eating bread may cause cancer than other scientist will say wow and do studies and experiments to prove true or not .

 

Alot of times the problem is lack of money when doing studies and experiments and only have the money to do the studies and experiments for 2 or 3 years or do not have enough money to have more test subjects or lack of money for computers and such. Other times some scientist are faster at doing studies and experiments and other times other scientist spend more time doing studies and experiments .Some times there is flaws in studies like leaving out other elements of the study like food ,environment ,genetic flaws so on.

 

 

I think it started with the title, "This is what makes me so sick about scientist today," followed by actual bashing of science.

 

I'm not going to debate on the interpretation of thread has you or anyone can believe has you want.

 

 

"science today is not about facts but short studies" shows a misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not merely a body of facts; science is a process. It's very important how the data are collected and how the questions are asked and answered. And the simple truth is that many aspects of scientific inquiry start with a small experiment or study, to see if a more extensive experiment is warranted. So while it may have been inadvertent, you did bash science.

 

I explain to the poster above want alot times the problem is.

 

 

Alot of times the problem is lack of money when doing studies and experiments and only have the money to do the studies and experiments for 2 or 3 years or do not have enough money to have more test subjects or lack of money for computers and such. Other times some scientist are faster at doing studies and experiments and other times other scientist spend more time doing studies and experiments .Some times there is flaws in studies like leaving out other elements of the study like food ,environment ,genetic flaws so on.

 

Over time alot those these above are worked out over time.

 

Further, a response about detoxing from meth is completely inappropriate, even in response to a strongly-worded opinion. Disagree with the opinion if you wish, but personal insults have no place in the conversation.

 

 

It has nothing to do with opinions.In my experence I have never really seen people talk or type like that on less they are detoxing or in flame war. It was not flame war that was going on with both us but a out lash of his inappropriate reply to first post is much to be frown on his character.And this is some thing I will not take regardless of forum rules and getting me ban.I would have not have been so rude if in thread we where in flame war or debating hard but this was NOT the case and response to first post that is very much inappropriate .

 

 

I would have not got all worked up here if all the news outlets the media and WHO said in way that scientist are working on this and doing studies and experiments ( and there debate amog scientist ) but it is not proven yet .

 

But when news outlets the media and WHO say talking on cell phone = cancer ,eating bread = cancer , living by power lines = caner than 20 years later it proven wrong that is want makes me sick.

 

 

What is the mechanism? That's one question that needs to be answered for this to be science rather than sensationalism.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't know if you are kid or not and I don't want sound rude here but scientist most always do studies and experiments to prove or disprove other scientist and I hear it all the time .If there was study in next 4 days that eating bread may cause cancer than other scientist will say wow and do studies and experiments to prove true or not .

 

Even kids know that a requirement for science is that it be repeatable. So if a scientist finds a study and finds it hard to believe, they repeat the study and if they don't get the same result they publish a paper contradicting the other study. This is especially true for controversial or "controversial" studies, and the journalists have extra fun publishing these repeatedly while leaving out all the important details. But in reality, most studies are for new things.

[Mokele]

No science is about studies and the more studies and longer studies it is proven fact . We had over 100 years to prove too much x-rays and gama rays are bad .Go back in time to 1920 and scientist will be scraching their head. When smoking was link to cancer the scientist where scraching their head. Now many scientist have done studies and is on every page cover every where.When nuclear power came around scientist at that time did not undestand the health risk.Over time they had much better understanding of the health risk.

 

So, you're only OK with taking time to understand things if that time was in the past?

 

News flash: there's ALWAYS going to be some important topic that we don't yet know the answer too. Complaining that we're in the middle of studies won't get you anywhere.

 

I don't think we need to talk about flaws in studies has everyone knows it here and most GOOD and I say again most GOOD scientist will factor in other elements of the study like food ,environment ,genetic flaws , age and so on.

 

You don't have any actual science experience, do you?

 

So, how do you know what factors to control for? Prior studies. And what happens when you design one of the 20-year-long studies you favor, then 10 years into it someone points out a factor that you couldn't possible have known about 10 years ago, that's only been discovered recently due to technological advances?

 

This myth of a single, perfectly designed, perfectly controlled study is pretty much an illusion from crappy high-school biology textbooks.

 

I don't know if you are kid or not and I don't want sound rude here

 

Too late on the rude part, and FYI, I'm a doctoral student at an Ivy League university (the best program in the world for my specialty).

[nec209]

Even kids know that a requirement for science is that it be repeatable. So if a scientist finds a study and finds it hard to believe, they repeat the study and if they don't get the same result they publish a paper contradicting the other study. This is especially true for controversial or "controversial" studies, and the journalists have extra fun publishing these repeatedly while leaving out all the important details. But in reality, most studies are for new things.

 

And I'm sure this is happing with controversial study of EMF and electricity like high power line. But the WHO and media are not saying this and that is what is making me bad.

 

 

So, you're only OK with taking time to understand things if that time was in the past?

 

What do you mean? I just take all new studies with grain of salt to there is repeatable studies and no debates in the science world.If in next 3 days a group of studies say eating bread cause cancer I'm going be skeptical.If you want to believe new studies or 3 or 4 studies go and believe it.

 

And any thing that is controversial or deabtes in the science world I just turn that out and say they don't have a clue to there is no controversial or deabtes going on .

 

 

News flash: there's ALWAYS going to be some important topic that we don't yet know the answer too. Complaining that we're in the middle of studies won't get you anywhere.

 

Where did I say they where in middle ? People have only really been using cell phones big for past 15 years tops . May be it is the chemicals the plastic , the bad food , being really fat , the environment or bad genes and all this can cause flaws in the studies .

 

So, how do you know what factors to control for? Prior studies. And what happens when you design one of the 20-year-long studies you favor, then 10 years into it someone points out a factor that you couldn't possible have known about 10 years ago, that's only been discovered recently due to technological advances?

 

Here is thing cancer is really hard to find out has it takes long long long time . You have to take people and tell them to live in controlled environment. It like smoking:eek: well smoking does not = cancer it just over time you could get cancer or not . Some people smoke to 90 and not get cancer.

 

People eat all types of food how are you going say group A all you going to do is eat this and group C all you going to do is eat this and so on? It may take 40 or 50 years or more to the person gets cancer.

 

There so many factors does person using cell phone lay around watch TV all day and play computer games , does person walk and work out , does the person live in city or country , does person smoke or drink ,does person eat bad foods is there genetic flaws , does person do drugs , is the person fat or slim and any other elements that may = flaws .

 

Other thing is one thing may not = cancer but you need 2 or 3 things like smoking ,drinking and bad foods or cell phone , bad food and lazy person that does not walk or work out.This going make the study that much harder to do.

 

Other thing is stress and how well the immune system works. Does the person that use cell phone get stress out and is mad alot. May be people that are not stress out and mad alot and get proper sleep have better immune system and do not get cancer when smoking or using a cell phone.

 

Some people cancer runs alot in the family and people that live by high-way and inner city may be very bad for you.There are so many elements that may = a bad study. And the last time I check there is always shortage of money for research.

 

That me tell you one thing in past 100 years we change evolution from type food we eat , in bubble of electronics and lack of walking and working out , material and products that was not around 100 years ago and now obesity ,diabetes ,cancer and heart disease exploded. And scientist are trying find cure and find out want is causing all of this.

Edited November 30, 2009 by nec209

[DJBruce]

Whats your problem with science now. You admit there are confounding variables in studies which make it impossible to know for certain that x causes y. You admit that long term medical studies are impractical. Yet, you are still angry when scientist report their results? Why, they are simply using the best date they have, to draw reasonable conclusions.

 

Also you really should be careful to how you read things. Very often most scientific studies are hesitant to state direct causation. For example, the warning on a box of cigarettes does not say, "Smoking cigarettes will give you cancer. " Cigarette boxes say, "Cigarette smoking may be harmful to your health." No where does the surgeon generals warning state that cigarette smoke causes anything. Not even in the non-scientific site you linked to did the author state that cell phone usage causes anything. The article says, "Has turned up a possible association between tumours and brain cancers." By the way association is not the same as causation.

[CaptainPanic]

I believe that nec209 made only 1 little mistake... and that was the use of the word science/scientist.

Read the 1st post again and replace "science/scientist" by "media" and "study" by "article", and it all makes perfect sense.

 

nec209 is actually angry at the media for bad reporting, for drawing the wrong conclusions from studies, from highlighting the wrong aspects of a study, for sensationalism, for misinformation and for pure lies.

 

In addition, I believe nec209 is angry because media will not study other scientists' work. They just pick one study, and report on that. The result is that one day you read that EMF might kill you, and the next day it's harmless. The actual studies on which the media based their stories probably referred to each other, and also included an error margin or some other statistical analysis.

 

But I hope that nec209 will reply to my post, and clarify... after all, I am putting words in his/her mouth, which is a little impolite.

[DJBruce]

I believe that nec209 made only 1 little mistake... and that was the use of the word science/scientist.

Read the 1st post again and replace "science/scientist" by "media" and "study" by "article", and it all makes perfect sense.

 

nec209 is actually angry at the media for bad reporting, for drawing the wrong conclusions from studies, from highlighting the wrong aspects of a study, for sensationalism, for misinformation and for pure lies.

 

In addition, I believe nec209 is angry because media will not study other scientists' work. They just pick one study, and report on that. The result is that one day you read that EMF might kill you, and the next day it's harmless. The actual studies on which the media based their stories probably referred to each other, and also included an error margin or some other statistical analysis.

 

But I hope that nec209 will reply to my post, and clarify... after all, I am putting words in his/her mouth, which is a little impolite.

 

I had a feeling this is what he was ranting about as well, however, wasn't really sure. If this was his complaint it would be completly valid, much more so than his complaint about science and the length of studies.

[A Tripolation]

Well, I kinda see his point, and I for one blame the scientists to some extent.

They LET their claims be mangled, as their inaction is just the same as an allowance.

 

Come off it people, do you REALLY expect the average person (of which I consider myself to be) to go around digging up the research to verify EVERY claim that is based off of scientific studies? And then, do you expect them to take the time to study the science BEHIND each research?

 

Like nec209, I hear almost every day on the news about how scientific studies are contradicting each other (mostly the medicinal ones). Do you all expect me to go and get a pre-med degree, read up on the latest pharmacuetical techniques in drug manufacturing, and get a degree in biochemistry? I've looked at medical journals, and that seems to be what it would take for me to make a rational claim on whether or not such and such treatment has been wrong for 20 years.

 

Aren't us lowly consumers entitled to some truth without having to spend years researching every dam claim made by scientific studies?

[CharonY]

They LET their claims be mangled, as their inaction is just the same as an allowance.

 

OK, so how do you prevent that? The news (especially, but not limited to the US) are more interested in narratives than in facts. So you (as a scientists) tell them something, carefully pointing out the caveats and they blow it out of proportion, or misinterpret it. You call them and say what they did was wrong and they shrug and tell you that it is old news anyway.

Another thing is that very few media are interested in properly reporting science news to begin with. Of course one could preach that scientists should do more outreach (on top of the extremely busy schedule I should add), but on what platform? Blog it, with the hope that a few students may end up reading it?

[A Tripolation]

Of course one could preach that scientists should do more outreach (on top of the extremely busy schedule I should add), but on what platform?

 

How about whenever the news gets scientists to basically reiterate what the media is "sensationalizing"? The news talks about this study and the ramification, and then they march on about 3 guys with advanced degrees in the topic field and get them to explain why this study is the end-all to the topic at hand. Shouldn't those scientists be saying stuff to the contrary instead of just nodding along and allowing the media to misconstrue their findings?

[CharonY]

And you believe that if the media find people who elaborate on why the narrative of the news outlet is wrong they will actually show it?

In contrast to, say, people like, Dr. Oz who can sprout popular nonsense completely unopposed?

Face it, the media only shows what people like to hear. That is their main purpose and not to educate people. Unless you start your own news outlet you cannot do much against that.