• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Global Warming bulletins

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
Strange enough, nuclear power was mentioned in the an environmental documentary called Environmental: War On Terror. With the risk of green house gasses and current alternatives not being sufficient enough and nuclear power being the only temporary solution.
The next documentary is on now so got to go.

The environmentalists who advocate nuclear powers are nerds who "don't get it" -- they're too literal to read between the lines. The reason the Left cares about carbon dioxide is the great potential for a radical reshuffling of power and wealth around the world. What good is a solution that leaves things much as they are? It would actually be better to let the seas rise -- and destroy the cathedrals of capitalism.

It's like those renegade feminists and gays in America who advocate carrying guns as protection against rape and gay-bashing (AWARE -- Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment, and Pink Pistols). The whole idea about the "Take Back the Night" marches is to produce outrage in women, to give them a feeling of holding the moral high-ground, and to silence the critics of feminism by associating them with rapists. Merely solving the problem misses the whole point.
[ January 10, 2005: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:


One word, "Chernobyl". Three words, "Three Mile Island".



Chernobyl is impossible in a modern nuclear powerstation. The design used was abandoned in the west in the 1950s.

TMI was blown way out of proportion by the anti-nuclear lobby. In fact it proved beyond reasonable doubt that a major accident in a nuclear powerstation will be completely contained.
No radiation in levels high enough to endanger anyone in the area ever was released beyond the reaction vessel which is exactly how it was designed to work.

P.S. did you know the amount of nuclear waste from a coal or oil fired powerplant is larger than that from a nuclear plant?
It's only because it's spread over a larger volume (slacks, ash mountains) that it's not mandatory to process it as nuclear waste...
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
The environmentalists who advocate nuclear powers are nerds who "don't get it" -- they're too literal to read between the lines. The reason the Left cares about carbon dioxide is the great potential for a radical reshuffling of power and wealth around the world. What good is a solution that leaves things much as they are? It would actually be better to let the seas rise -- and destroy the cathedrals of capitalism.

It's like those renegade feminists and gays in America who advocate carrying guns as protection against rape and gay-bashing (AWARE -- Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment, and Pink Pistols). The whole idea about the "Take Back the Night" marches is to produce outrage in women, to give them a feeling of holding the moral high-ground, and to silence the critics of feminism by associating them with rapists. Merely solving the problem misses the whole point.

[ January 10, 2005: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]



To reitterate: the real agenda is not to solve the problems (if they even exist) but to perpetuate them (which is far easier with non-existent problems) to gain more support and political power for themselves.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
The reason the Left cares about carbon dioxide is the great potential for a radical reshuffling of power and wealth around the world. What good is a solution that leaves things much as they are? It would actually be better to let the seas rise -- and destroy the cathedrals of capitalism.



The Left aren't really a single large block made up of lunatics wanting to bring down society! I'd expect that most do not consider the seas rising to be a good thing, and the reason they care about CO2 emissions is the number of people who could die because of global warming, rather than the potential reshuffling of power.

It would be possible to similarly incorrectly say that there is a block of people called "The Right" who don't want to try and stop global warming because those efforts would harm their profits.... but it wouldn't be true - the world isn't split into opposing camps of Left and Right, each of which see the other as an evil enemy.

It may or may not be true that we are contributing to the proven increases in world temperature, but perhaps its a good thing to look into and investigate a bit. We don't know how fragile the system is, and the potential for human produced emissions to be "the last straw" that tips the environment into irreversible damaging change is something we need to understand.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:


One word, "Chernobyl". Three words, "Three Mile Island".



I saw a program where some people living near Chernobyl who were affected by the disaster but didn't know the extent of the damage to themselves ( i.e they may die in 5 years time or 25 years time) yet still advocated nuclear power. They said any new energy would bring new risks and have to learn to deal with the risks. The problem lies when people don't follow the guidelines.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


The Left aren't really a single large block made up of lunatics wanting to bring down society! I'd expect that most do not consider the seas rising to be a good thing, and the reason they care about CO2 emissions is the number of people who could die because of global warming, rather than the potential reshuffling of power.



The problem is that the entire argument that CO2 emissions cause "global warming" which causes sealevels to rise massively is based on no scientific evidence at all.
It's all only an elaborate lie designed to create FUD among people in order to get them to give ever more power to the leftists.
And I do hold that the leftists (at least the hardliners) DO want to bring down society. After all, in their world view that's the only way to achieve their socialist/anarchist/communist paradise...
But they are indeed (lucky for sane (read, non-leftist) people) extremely divided.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


I saw a program where some people living near Chernobyl who were affected by the disaster but didn't know the extent of the damage to themselves ( i.e they may die in 5 years time or 25 years time) yet still advocated nuclear power. They said any new energy would bring new risks and have to learn to deal with the risks. The problem lies when people don't follow the guidelines.



quite likely. And if not near a nuclear plant they'd have lived next to a major coal fired plant. If those explode you're also dead or poisoned...
And as Chernobyl melt down due to the staff deliberately shutting down all safeguards in order to study the effects of an overheating reactor (which the safeguards were there to prevent) and that hypothetical coalfired plant would also have gone boom it's useless to say that coalfired plants don't explode (as except this once no nuclear plant has ever gone boom either and this was no accident).
Well, at least those people who wanted to find out what would happen got what they were looking for (not that they had very long to celebrate the success of their experiment as they got to experience a nuclear meltdown from very close up which isn't very healthy).

Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than any other. The entire crusade against it is based purely on FUD, mainly the idea that every nuclear powerstation is a massive hydrogen bomb waiting to go off (an image that is literally used by the anti-nuclear lobby).
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Jeroen Wenting:

I find that rather hard to believe, especially if you consider that the UK has maybe 6 million cars.

This linkGives a British population figure of 59.8 million, and says there are 476 motor vehicles per 1000 people, so wouldn't that be more like 26 million vehicles, mostly cars?

I was also assuming that more like 90% of cars had tires underinflated by 10% or so, which is likely true in the U.S. where people rarely check their tire pressure but perhaps not true in Europe. I admit to using U.S. fuel efficiency numbers - I knew Europe was better, but not that it was that much better (looks like more than a factor of two).

[ January 09, 2005: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]



Even at 4 times the number of cars you still end up with those cars driving an average 2000km a day instead of 8000.
But in Europe the percentage of lorries is higher as is the percentage of newer cars. Skyhigh vehicle taxes make for a high percentage of company cars most of which get replaced every few years.

I doubt 90% have underinflated tyres, I doubt that severely in fact.
Cars are expensive, most people tend to maintain them well (or at least better than many of the scrapheaps I saw in the US).
The simple fact that all cars in most European countries have a mandatory yearly checkup and they get their license plates pulled if they don't pass makes for that.
Tyre pressure is part of that checkup (at least here, I'd guess everywhere) as are emissions.
Europeans also tend to drive faster than do Americans. Driving on soft tyres is dangerous and causes tyres to wear faster (which gets expensive in replacements), another reason to keep them inflated.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


The problem lies when people don't follow the guidelines.



lately I've beeen reading guidelines on using the mobile phone.

1) Don't use it if a landline is available (I'd include use a PC than a mobile phone for accessing Web sites)
2) all those things you heard about radiation from mobile phones not being good for you are true - they affect your health (can't remember how specifically)

3) Cast off phones are an environmental disaster - they can be recycled for the 3rd world


But should we expect lawsuits on mobile companies in the future or even companies that provide services for the mobile phone. Similar to the suits we see for tobacco companies. Only those proven to have suffered severe ill-health will sue successfully.

Similarly, soon you'll have cars shedding parts regularly - parts that have mobile computing built into them.
[ January 11, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
1) that's a cost issue, landlines are generally cheaper
2) that's bogus. The only study that ever showed there was a direct link was so seriously flawed even the anti-cellphone people didn't dare quote it.
3) mainly the batteries. Personally I keep my phone until it breaks down and is useless but I know I'm in the minority and especially youngsters get a new one several times a year. Reusing their old phones for something would indeed be a good idea.

2) addition:
The energy emitted by a cellphone (I'm talking a modern one here, not the behemoths of 20 years ago) is extremely low.
The urban myth that it causes brain damage is just that, an urban myth.
While radiation in the frequency bands used CAN be dangerous to your health the energy levels needed are extremely high and could not be generated by that phone of yours even if the entire power of your battery were to be channeled through a transmitter in one big pulse (the emitter in your phone would fry to a cinder if it even tried).

The only way people get hurt by cellphones is by using aftermarket batteries of questionable origin. These can sometimes overheat and either melt or (more rarely) explode, possibly causing burns.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
1) that's a cost issue, landlines are generally cheaper
2) that's bogus. The only study that ever showed there was a direct link was so seriously flawed even the anti-cellphone people didn't dare quote it.



1) Well to get some features on my mobile phone working I spent a lot of time on the phone - my bill for that month went to �136. All those 0800 numbers I have to check how much they's have cost on the mobile.

2) There's a recent study out last week.

3) The dangers of cigarette smoking were an urban myth for decades.
[ January 11, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


2) There's a recent study out last week.

3) The dangers of cigarette smoking were an urban myth for decades.



There's studies out all the time. NONE prove there's any danger at all, but the ones sponsored by the anti-cellphone people (usually some ambulance chasers who want to sue the networks or manufacturers for a few billion so they can buy a new businessjet) don't say there's no effect and "more study is needed".

Say I take a group of 20 patients with brain tumours and use 10 as a control group.
The other 10 I give a mobile phone and in one of them the tumour grows a bit more quickly than observed in the others (but still within the normal expected range of speeds, something you of course won't mention in your report).
Now I report that I've proven that there's a relation between the use of cellphones and the growth rate of brain tumours.

It's of course very easy to show how this study is some of the worst junk science ever:
1) the group of test subjects is way too small to say anything
2) the deviation from the expected observations is so small as to fall well within background noise and is therefore irrelevant
3) the conclusions from the study completely fail to mention either point.
4) the test subjects were not representative of the group of people they're stated to represent (using patients with existing brain tumours as a benchmark for all society).

And in case you think I made this all up, I didn't.
This study with these results was done in Florida (I think it was) in 2001 or 2002.

As to cigarettes, that was never an urban myth. Governments though make a LOT of money from cigarette sales so the data was not made very public...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:

3) The dangers of cigarette smoking were an urban myth for decades.

[ January 11, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]



That's interesting considering they had the nickname of coffin nails 'decades' ago.

It's rather interesting seeing people flip out about the slightest possibility of danger from a new product. Lets try a question.

Let's say I created a new fuel source. It was clean burning, and could provide efficient energy. The problem: It is flammable to the point of being explosive, colorless, and odorless. How many deaths would you allow, per year, before considering this new fuel source to be too dangerous to allow and outlawing it?
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
PS, I found references to the study Helen refers to which supposedly claims mobile phones are bad for your health.
It claims no such thing.
As all junk science studies it only claims that more research is needed and that people should beware that it has not been proven there is NO effect.


In its latest report into the safety of mobile phones the NRPB said today that there is "no hard evidence at present that the health of the public, in general, is being affected adversely by the use of mobile phone technologies, but uncertainties remain and a continued precautionary approach to their use is recommended until the situation is further clarified".



In other words "give us more money so we can put out more useless reports that prove nothing because there's nothing to prove". The FUD spreading is part of that for the simple reason that without FUD there's little ground to give them more money...
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
And I do hold that the leftists (at least the hardliners) DO want to bring down society. After all, in their world view that's the only way to achieve their socialist/anarchist/communist paradise...
But they are indeed (lucky for sane (read, non-leftist) people) extremely divided.



Do you mean just the hardliners or all people on the left want to bring down society? If people in Europe were asked if they were "left" or "right", probably at least half would say "left", but I doubt any more than a tiny fraction would like to bring down society. There are always a few lunatics at the fringes who want to do silly things, but that isn't limited to the left. There are lunatics on the right as well, but I expect that there are in similarly small numbers. Most likely the large proportion of people, be they left or right, are reasonably happy with society and would like at most a few small tweaks to the system.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


There are always a few lunatics at the fringes who want to do silly things, but that isn't limited to the left. There are lunatics on the right as well, but I expect that there are in similarly small numbers. Most likely the large proportion of people, be they left or right, are reasonably happy with society and would like at most a few small tweaks to the system.



And since we now hear of Prince Harry's mighty gaffe - He wore a Swastika armband on a military style shirt to a party given by his father's and aunt's friend, Olympic medalist Richard Meade. After that gaffe people are questioning whether Harry should be allowed to enter the military.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
PS, I found references to the study Helen refers to which supposedly claims mobile phones are bad for your health.
It claims no such thing.
As all junk science studies it only claims that more research is needed and that people should beware that it has not been proven there is NO effect.


In other words "give us more money so we can put out more useless reports that prove nothing because there's nothing to prove". The FUD spreading is part of that for the simple reason that without FUD there's little ground to give them more money...



The study I referred to was the four-year study funded by the EU that indicated that children in particular are vulnerable to mobile phones altering their DNA. Cells that have their DNA altered can become cancerous.
The mutation of DNA has been cited as a possible cause of cancer.

The guideline given are that young children should not use mobile phones and that a landline should be used where possible by everyone. I find this worrying as my toddler niece and nephew , ever since getting a mobile phone game with MacDonald Twisty fries want to play with mobile phones. One is slightly dyslexic as it is. But I would be glad that they'd know how to use a mobile phone in an emergency.

There has been no hard evidence so far that the biological changes caused by mobile phones result in disease. Even so, it's best to follow guidelines where ther is doubt.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
If all Britain made sure they didn't drive with flat tyres, 35 million litres of petrol would be saved everyday.



May be Tweel is the way forward, they don't need air at all!!
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:


May be Tweel is the way forward, they don't need air at all!!

[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]



Excellent! It looks like a bicycle tyre.

"Michelin's Tweel is in production and available as an enhancement for future iBOT� mobility systems. Invented by Dean Kamen, the iBOT� mobility device has the ability to climb stairs and navigate uneven terrain, offering mobility freedom impossible with traditional wheelchairs. Additionally, Segway LLC's Concept Centaur, a prototype that applies self-balancing technology to a four-wheel device, has also been equipped with Tweel to increase its performance potential. "
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


The study I referred to was the four-year study funded by the EU that indicated that children in particular are vulnerable to mobile phones altering their DNA. Cells that have their DNA altered can become cancerous.
The mutation of DNA has been cited as a possible cause of cancer.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]



The study you're referring to, if it's the same one I think (same location, results), showed that cells in a petry dish had there DNA altered when they were blasted with roughly the amount of cellphone radiation you would get in a lifetime, if you were a heavy cell phone user.

It's just researchers looking for more money. Do you think they could get more grants if they said 'We don't think there is really a problem here, and there is no evidence to suggest one, but we need serveral thousand dollars to look anyways'.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:


The study you're referring to, if it's the same one I think (same location, results), showed that cells in a petry dish had there DNA altered when they were blasted with roughly the amount of cellphone radiation you would get in a lifetime, if you were a heavy cell phone user.

It's just researchers looking for more money. Do you think they could get more grants if they said 'We don't think there is really a problem here, and there is no evidence to suggest one, but we need serveral thousand dollars to look anyways'.



If they did the experiment to live mice and monkeys would that help you think it was a real problem ?
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


If they did the experiment to live mice and monkeys would that help you think it was a real problem ?



It's not that it was cells in a dish, it's the massive volume of radiation they hit it with. It's the same deal with the sweetner some years back that everybody thought was going to cause cancer. A massive overdose of half the stuff we consume would kill you, but normal use has no measurable adverse effects.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You might not have noticed but there are people who have the mobile phone glued to their ear. I am sure if a survey were to ask If you had to leave your burning house what would you take , the answer would be the mobile phone. This answer would come mostly from women and children of all ages.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
And since we now hear of Prince Harry's mighty gaffe - He wore a Swastika armband on a military style shirt to a party given by his father's and aunt's friend, Olympic medalist Richard Meade. After that gaffe people are questioning whether Harry should be allowed to enter the military.



It just goes to show how the royalty is subject to much higher standards. The BBC's mideast correspondents are allowed to think and talk like Nazis, but the Prince isn't mustn't to dress like one.

 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
You might not have noticed but there are people who have the mobile phone glued to their ear. I am sure if a survey were to ask If you had to leave your burning house what would you take , the answer would be the mobile phone. This answer would come mostly from women and children of all ages.

[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]



Actully there was a survey done in that area. Women, for the most part, would grab their favorite family picture. I don't remember what the men grabed, but it wasn't the picture. (I'm sure that will cause alot of wild speculation )

Still, even with heavy cell phone use, that study has no relevance. That would be like putting the cells into a microwave and running it for 10 minutes. Then when you pull them out and their all fried releasing a report that you may be putting yourself in danger if you use a microwave every day, but we need to do more studies.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Still I think, rather several thousand dollars to look than several billion dollars to treat a disease which will have it's own peculiarities afterwards - not to mention lost revenue in people not being able to work.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:


It just goes to show how the royalty is subject to much higher standards. The BBC's mideast correspondents are allowed to think and talk like Nazis, but the Prince isn't mustn't to dress like one.

I think he might have been misled by someone else to do this as a prank. It seems a bit out of character for the Prince recently seen putting a lot of effort in charity work. I remember the picture of him holding a traumatised baby in Lesotho/swaziland who was sexually abused by the mother's boyfriend. The Prince's face showed his pain. But this gaffe will almost certainly mark him down for life. But it also shows the amount of freedom the Royal children have to make their decisions of how they want to live, thanks to his mother.

The Nazis created an environment but who pulled the triggers and turned on the gases ? Ordinary people conditioned over decades who were probably not particularly for the 'left' or 'right' but just looking for a leader to give them a better life and not tax them to death.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
I think he might have been misled by someone else to do this as a prank. It seems a bit out of character for the Prince...

What do you expect after a 1,000 years of in-breeding?
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It was quite accepted for most people to fall in love with ( and sometimes marry ) their cousins then - Albert Einstein did (though he was already married - his poor wife lost 4 stone in weight over this dreadful period) and he also had fleas.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I love the apology:

In the statement, Harry said he was "very sorry if I caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone."

if? Hey twit... you offended nearly every person the planet. Why don't you stop smoking pot and try to act like a future king of England. Whoops, you are acting like a future king of England. Never mind.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The potential future king of England was also at the party. They probably arrived separately. Harry is already considered to be too hot-headed to be King. Prince Charles was considered to be too weak. What has this to do with Global Warming ? The Princes are kind of instrumental in shaping opinion and British good-will in Africa mainly, which has been the Royals' primary role in the world for the last two centuries. I'd say the rest of the world don't pay much heed to the Royal family now as the world has moved on.

Their mission should they wish to accept it.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I love the apology:

In the statement, Harry said he was "very sorry if I caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone."

if? Hey twit... you offended nearly every person the planet. Why don't you stop smoking pot and try to act like a future king of England. Whoops, you are acting like a future king of England. Never mind.



I suppose this is a reference to Edward, King briefly who abdicated over American divorcee Wallis Simpson, and both Nazi sympathisers.


[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:


Actully there was a survey done in that area. Women, for the most part, would grab their favorite family picture. I don't remember what the men grabed, but it wasn't the picture. (I'm sure that will cause alot of wild speculation )

Still, even with heavy cell phone use, that study has no relevance. That would be like putting the cells into a microwave and running it for 10 minutes. Then when you pull them out and their all fried releasing a report that you may be putting yourself in danger if you use a microwave every day, but we need to do more studies.



With the new mobile phones , adding the time phoning,textng and surfing could have the same effect as being microwaved all day.
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


With the new mobile phones , adding the time phoning,textng and surfing could have the same effect as being microwaved all day.

[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]



I might consider that to be a valid point IF there was any indication that cell phones generate enough 'radiation' to cause any harm.

Still waiting to see if anybody wants to suggest a death toll on the energy source I proposed earlier

(so you don't have to go and find it again)
'Let's say I created a new fuel source. It was clean burning, and could provide efficient energy. The problem: It is flammable to the point of being explosive, colorless, and odorless. How many deaths would you allow, per year, before considering this new fuel source to be too dangerous to allow and outlawing it?'

1, 10, 100???
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I love the apology:
In the statement, Harry said he was "very sorry if I caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone."
if? Hey twit... you offended nearly every person the planet. Why don't you stop smoking pot and try to act like a future king of England. Whoops, you are acting like a future king of England. Never mind.



The chances are that he won't become King anyway (being the younger brother). *Pedantic Mode* Besides, there's no such thing as King/Queen of England any more, its King/Queen of The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland, King/Queen of Canada, King/Queen of Australia etc

It amazed me how much media attention this story is getting. Yes he's been an idiot, but how many people of that age don't do stupid things from time to time? Of all of the things going on in the world, I can't see how this is the most important story like some papers make it out to be. The Sun *shudder* seemed to have most of the paper devoted to it today. Forget the troubles in Israel, the situation in Iraq, the political upheaval in Ukraine or the troubles in Asia, the according to them the key issue of the day is a fancy dress costume. The worrying fact is that this is the most popular paper in the country. :roll:
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


The study I referred to was the four-year study funded by the EU that indicated that children in particular are vulnerable to mobile phones altering their DNA. Cells that have their DNA altered can become cancerous.
The mutation of DNA has been cited as a possible cause of cancer.



After 4 years the study ONLY showed that there was no evidence that DNA is NOT altered.
The "scientists" massaged that conclusion to mean that cellphones are dangerous by simply concluding that no evidence that there is no damage means that there is damage.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


If they did the experiment to live mice and monkeys would that help you think it was a real problem ?



no.
These tests blast mice and monkeys in a few minutes with more radiation than you'd get from a cellphone were you to use it 24/7 for several decades.

It's the same as the study a few years ago that showed shampoo causes skincancer.
This was proven by injecting mice with extreme concentrations of substances thought to possibly be carcinogenic that exist in some shampoos.
The concentrations were so high that they'd amount to injecting in one dose the same amount of these substances you'd get onto your skin if you were to use several hundred bottles of shampoo for every day straight for a lifetime...
I'd not call that a risk, would you?
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
You might not have noticed but there are people who have the mobile phone glued to their ear. I am sure if a survey were to ask If you had to leave your burning house what would you take , the answer would be the mobile phone. This answer would come mostly from women and children of all ages.



And still they're not at risk.
The dose they're exposed to is too low for that, even over time.

This experiment (as all such junkscience does) uses exposure of several lifetimes worth of the substance (in this case radiation) under investigation in a single dose.

If normal (even extreme) use it's like taking a shower, the dose they administer is like being submerged in the Marianas trough.
In the first case there will be no adverse effect, in the second you're dead.
Yet does that prove that a shower is lethal? Because that's the kind of conclusions these "scientists" arrive at based on such basically flawed tests.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I love the apology:

In the statement, Harry said he was "very sorry if I caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone."

if? Hey twit... you offended nearly every person the planet. Why don't you stop smoking pot and try to act like a future king of England. Whoops, you are acting like a future king of England. Never mind.



He offended only insensitive or oversensitive people...
He arrives at a costume party in a German WW2 style uniform. Part of that uniform is traditionally an armband with a Swastika.
Not showing that would have been disgustingly politically correct as well as openly denying a period of history.

Were he to have appeared as Mao or Stalin would people have reacted so violently? Both caused far more missery and death than any single German soldier ever did in WW2...
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:


(so you don't have to go and find it again)
'Let's say I created a new fuel source. It was clean burning, and could provide efficient energy. The problem: It is flammable to the point of being explosive, colorless, and odorless. How many deaths would you allow, per year, before considering this new fuel source to be too dangerous to allow and outlawing it?'

1, 10, 100???



At the time that energy source was discovered such considerations were immaterial.
Today, in our overlawyered world, the count would be 0...
And even the tiniest chance that maybe something bad might happen to someone in the indefinite future would be enough reason to outlaw it.

Another example:
There's this colourless, odourless, liquid that most people take completely for granted.
Governments and health speciflists tell people to take in several liters of it every day.
Yet it's a major component in acid rain, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people die because of it every year, it is a major cause of corrosion of metals.
Were it to be discovered today it would be outlawed immediately as being dangerous.

I'm talking of water of course.
 
She's brilliant. She can see what can be and is not limited to what is. And she knows this tiny ad:
Sauce Labs - World's Largest Continuous Testing Cloud for Websites and Mobile Apps
https://coderanch.com/t/722574/Sauce-Labs-World-Largest-Continuous
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!