-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="558911" data-time="1455554553">
<div>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/76923096/Shane-Warne-believes-alien-experiments-turned-monkeys-into-humans'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/76923096/Shane-Warne-believes-alien-experiments-turned-monkeys-into-humans</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have got so much respect now for Shane Warne.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's like a class A wind up merchant.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or retarded. I really hope its the former. Either way, there some real food for thought there from Shane.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>For once the Stuff comments were pretty good value.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p> </p>
<p>The ones that didn't evolve into humans became Warnes</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Didn't Shane evolve from a surgeons knife?</p>
</blockquote> -
Mobile phones and cancer ... <br><br>
Catalyst is a science show on ABC TV.<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/77073286/Do-Wi-Fi-and-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-Experts-respond">http://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/77073286/Do-Wi-Fi-and-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-Experts-respond</a><br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"><p><strong><br>
Do Wi-Fi and mobile phones really cause cancer? Experts respond</strong><br><br>
Last updated 05:00 20/02/2016<br><br>
SIMON CHAPMAN, DARREN SAUNDERS, RODNEY CROFT, AND SARAH LOUGHRAN<br><br>
Could radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi cause brain cancer? We ask the experts.<br>
On 16th February, Catalyst aired an episode on the ABC titled "Wi-Fried", hosted by Dr Maryanne Demasi, claiming that radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi may constitute a brain cancer risk.<br><br>
We invited experts who have conducted research into this area to respond to the claims made in the programme.<br><br><strong>Rodney Croft, University of Wollongong</strong><br><br>
Instead of science journalism, Catalyst aired a misleading program, which followed the views of a few individuals in arguing that radiofrequency emissions from wireless devices were harmful.<br><br>
Although the program failed to disclose this, such views are not supported by science and should be taken merely as the personal views of some fringe scientists.<br><br>
In fact, the scientific consensus is strong, and is that there is no substantiated evidence that the low levels of radiofrequency emissions encountered by mobile telecommunications can cause any harm.<br><br>
For more details about the international scientific consensus on this issue you may find the website of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) of interest, or closer to home, that of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research.<br><br><em>Professor Rodney Croft is Director of the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia's Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy, he is a current ICNIRP Commissioner, and Professor of Health Psychology at University of Wollongong.</em><br><br><strong>Darren Saunders, University of NSW</strong><br><br>
It's really disappointing to see the bastion of TV science in Australia approach a story in this way.<br><br>
Scaremongering and pseudoscience have plenty of other outlets on TV, and there are so many amazing science stories to be told locally and internationally. There was very selective reporting of existing data and sensationalist headlines.<br><br>
Catalyst has missed an opportunity to use this topic as a way to demonstrate scientific or critical thinking.<br><br>
With so many scientists questioning the content and angle of stories like this, then it's probably time for Catalyst to reflect on its approach.<br><br>
The really frustrating aspect is that rebuttals and factchecks won't undo the damage. There are very real public health effects of scaremongering like this, creating anxiety and fear.<br><br>
The two main flaws in the argument that stand out scientifically are:<br><br>
The lack of any demonstrable increase in brain cancer incidence over time. We have been exposed to the same kind of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation long before mobile phones and Wi-Fi became commonplace, and<br><br>
The absence of a plausible biological mechanism for how this kind of radiation can cause cancer. There were very poor analogies made with microwave ovens and smoking, which are purely emotive and not based on actual science. Comparing a microwave to a mobile phone is like comparing a Saturn V rocket to your lawnmower.<br><br><em>Dr Darren Saunders is a cancer biologist at the University of NSW and visiting fellow at the Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute.</em><br><br><strong>Sarah Loughran, University of Wollongong</strong><br><br>
The ABC's Catalyst programme "Wi-Fried" asked the question of whether Wi-Fi and radiation from wireless devices could be affecting our health.<br><br>
Unfortunately a very disappointing and inaccurate story was presented, with the underlying suggestion throughout the episode that exposure to the radiofrequency fields emitted by these devices is not safe.<br><br>
Many claims were made without providing any substantiated science to support what was essentially individual and selective opinions that were used to paint an incorrect picture of the current state of knowledge.<br><br>
Indeed there is currently no scientific evidence that exposure to low level radiofrequency, such as emitted by mobile phones and Wi-Fi, has an impact on health.<br><br>
By not providing a balanced view of the science, Catalyst has left viewers with misleading messages related to the use of such devices, which may serve to perpetuate fear related to a health risk that currently does not exist.<br><br><em>Dr Sarah Loughran is a researcher at the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia's Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy. She is currently a member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criterion Evaluation Committee on Radiofrequency Fields, the scientific expert group of ICNIRP, and is on the board of directors for the Bioelectromagnetics Society.</em><br><br><strong>Simon Chapman, University of Sydney</strong><br><br>
Dr Devra Davis, who was featured extensively in the Catalyst programme, asserted that it was too early to see any rise in brain cancer caused by mobile phones or Wi-Fi, and argued that brain cancers after the Japanese atomic bombs did not appear for 40 years. This is simply incorrect.<br><br>
There is no evidence of any increase in the rate per 100,000 population of brain cancer in any age group in Australia from 1982 to the present, other than for the very oldest age group where the increase started well before mobile phones were introduced in Australia and so cannot be explained by mobile phones. All cancer in Australia is notifiable, and over 85% of brain cancer is histologically verified: it is not just a doctor's opinion.<br><br>
This paper also reports on central nervous system cancers (including brain cancers) in those exposed to atomic bomb radiation in Japan. This table from the paper shows those diagnosed before 1985 (i.e. before 40 years). You can see that there were 110/187 cases diagnosed in the first 40 years, i.e. 58.8%.<br><br><br>
This table shows the incidence of a variety of cancers of those exposed to atomic bomb radiation over the years. Cancer/DOI 10.1002/cncr.20543<br>
And this quote from the methods shows that there were another 27 who died before 1958 from central nervous system cancers, i.e. within 13 years of the bombs.<br><br>
We excluded 73 tumors in individuals who were not in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the bombings, 35 individuals who did not have available organ dose estimates, and 27 individuals who died or were diagnosed before January 1, 1958.<br><br>
We have had mobiles in Australia since 1988. Some 90% of the population use them today and many of these have used them for a lot longer than 13 years, but we are seeing no rise in the incidence against the background rate.<br><br>
Davis is arguing that we would see a sudden rise 40 years later. That is not what we see with cancer; we see gradual rises moving toward peak incidence, which can be as late as 30-40 years (as with lung cancer and smoking for example).<br><br><br>
New cases of brain cancer in Australia, 1982 to 2011 (age-adjusted) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, CC BY<br><br><em>Simon Chapman is Emeritus Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney</em><br><br>
The Conversation<br><br>
This article was originally published on The Conversation.</p></blockquote>Of course the first mistake by the authors of this article was asking the experts ...<br><br>
Shills to big phone obviously.<br><br>
The one comment by a Stuff reader was quite funny: <br>
"Jet fuel can't melt brain tumors." -
<p>Yeah lot of shit flying around about Catalyst on this one. For a show with a fairly good reputation at teasing out the science for everyone to understand, they definitely fucked up this time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But no such thing as bad publicity I guess...</p> -
<p>there is a page on FB telling people facts about the referendum for the flag, yet all half the hoofwankingbumblecunts can wank on about if how John Key has already decided which one will win and how the $26,000,000 is a huge waste....there is a page admin who has been pretty patient answering/responding to some serious arseclown commentS!!</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="559788" data-time="1455956103"><p>
there is a page on FB telling people facts about the referendum for the flag, yet all half the hoofwankingbumblecunts can **** on about if how John Key has already decided which one will win and how the $26,000,000 is a huge waste....there is a page admin who has been pretty patient answering/responding to some serious arseclown commentS!!</p></blockquote>
<br>
Got a link? I feel the need to reassure myself I'm not the in the dumbest 5% of New Zealanders ... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="559801" data-time="1455966146">
<div>
<p>Got a link? I feel the need to reassure myself I'm not the in the dumbest 5% of New Zealanders ...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You post on here mate. Surely that tells you that you are not in that group...</p> -
Now people on Veitchs page have turned on Richie for daring to offer his opinion, apparently he has been bribed and in Keys pocket with a view to joining National.
-
<p>I actually see civil unrest and civil 'war' in some countries in the next 30 years.</p>
<p>The hatred towards capitalism is growing amongst the retarded. Socialism is becoming acceptable to many, Capitalism and neo liberalism is considered a bad thing. Everything is just going in cycles and we are entering a cycle where a number of countries are going to allow themselves to go full retard and rivert back to eastern Europe of the 60's and Venezuela of now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/socialism-making-comeback?utm_content=buffer80582&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer'>http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/socialism-making-comeback?utm_content=buffer80582&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer</a></p> -
While they are incredibly vocal online I don't think the numbers of leftards are as big as you think , also they come with a fair amount of baggage. The most topical being open immigration policies and idiot ideas about multiculturalism which in Europe are becoming more unpopular by the day .<br>
Also they don't seem to have much of a clue , The left of labour here undermined Shearer because he was too right wing for them and installed Cunliffe because they thought the public were crying out for a shift to the left. I reckon they got this idea from their echo chambers and twitter. Shearer was polling at 38% , they'd kill for those numbers now,<br><br>
I'd be surprised if any party in Europe espousing the usual leftard open immigration policies got anywhere near govt with things the way they are. Poland is already got a very conservative govt and I reckon a few other Easter European states will go the same way campaigning to kept Arab ferals out. -
Paleo.<br><br>
Apparently not quite what it is cracked up to be.<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/if-not-paleo,-then-what/7200410">http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/if-not-paleo,-then-what/7200410</a><br><br>
Listened to this yesterday on the ABC radio. The arguments in favour of paleo sounded remarkably familiar. I wonder whether Pete Evans and Winger are related.<br><br>
Obviously Paleo has some basis in fact, but don't dare dis it or question it's totality. -
<p><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6wjEnha9Uf4/TP_371UOOoI/AAAAAAAACMU/qM1ioBkJvto/s1600/cave.jpg" alt="cave.jpg"></p>
-
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin'>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin</a><br><br>
Interesting article , the last paragraphs about the Internet and its effect on science will ring true with anyone who's watched the pro disease crowd ignore facts and outright lie. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="571778" data-time="1460487911">
<div>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin'>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin</a><br><br>
Interesting article , the last paragraphs about the Internet and its effect on science will ring true with anyone who's watched the pro disease crowd ignore facts and outright lie.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you mean this one (doesn't it conclude the opposite to what you have posted)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When I asked Lustig why he was the first researcher in years to focus on the dangers of sugar, he answered: “John Yudkin. They took him down so severely – so severely – that nobody wanted to attempt it on their own.â€</p>
<p> </p>
<p>or this</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is a familiar complaint. By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters. Politicians cannot rely on the aura of office to persuade, newspapers struggle to assert the superior integrity of their stories. It is not clear that this change is, overall, a boon for the public realm. But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="571964" data-time="1460538089">
<p>By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters.</p>
</blockquote>
<br><br><p>Instead, we get Andrew Wakefield, and <strike>K</strike> Jenny McCarthy and other fucking uneducated nutbag cuntards, who support his publicly-funded misinformation, long after it is proven to be scientifically unsound across a number of fields, not the least of which is medicine.</p> -
<p>The internet is fantastic in that it lets people critique shit & fully analyse it. The problem is people are reeeeeally bad at discerning valid critiques from batshit stupidity that agrees with them. And they will always lean towards anything that agrees with their already anchored view.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And no one does dick in the way of research.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I could set up a site saying I'm Doctor Gollum with a PHD from Havard in climate science. And 1000x more people would cite the shit I posted as proof of their already set ideas, than would actually check to see if I was actually a Doctor. Or had a PHD. Or knew where Harvard was. </p>
Your favourite conspiracy theories