The Human Thirst for Knowledge - Blessing or Curse?

  • Thread starter Joel
  • 208 comments
  • 27,218 views
The issue is... none of the studies of clusters or patients have proven conclusive.

We have a booster tower on top of the building beside us. Have had it for years. No brain cancer cases yet.

A relative died of brain cancer in her seventies. Never used a cellphone in her life, and the signal at her place is pure doggie doo.
 
Just for a moment let's get real and drop the denial. You, I and the rest of us all use cellphones because they are so darn convenient. We have seen fit to ignore the danger and totally leave behind the precautionary principle. If you, I, or our children develop brain cancer and die an early and excruciating death, it will be thoroughly deserved and we will have had it coming. No complaints or whining will be admissible. Schadenfreude artists the world over will laugh at us, and we will just have to suck it up. That is the paradox of technology; it is both blessing and curse.

We have been warned. Okay.

Now we can go comfortably back to business as usual.

With all due respect,
Dotini
 
Dotini
Just for a moment let's get real and drop the denial. You, I and the rest of us all use cellphones because they are so darn convenient. We have seen fit to ignore the danger and totally leave behind the precautionary principle. If you, I, or our children develop brain cancer and die an early and excruciating death, it will be thoroughly deserved and we will have had it coming. No complaints or whining will be admissible. Schadenfreude artists the world over will laugh at us, and we will just have to suck it up. That is the paradox of technology; it is both blessing and curse.

We have been warned. Okay.

Now we can go comfortably back to business as usual.

With all due respect,
Dotini
Click to expand...

The problem is:

We are faced with contradictory evidence on whether or not it happens. People say that long-term studies that show no effects are flawed because the effects take longer. Which is weird, because newer cellphone technology uses less... actually... much less RF radiation on both the handset side (walkie talkies emit more) and the transmitter side. The new digital systems are so weak that cellphones no longer produce RF interference with other devices even at close distances... older analogue phones could fritz a PA system at twenty paces.

By the bye... I still remember the furore over television radiation from back in the 70's and 80's... but nobody's linked it to blindness... :lol: . On that note... television station towers emit much more radiation than cell towers.

You're more likely to get cancer from solar radiation than a cellphone. Unless you have one stuck to your ear for ten hours a day straight for ten years. Which is obviously quite stupid... as the actual heat generated by the cellphone is bad for your health and can also cause malignant growth.

-

Of course... since cellular use is so widespread... it's very easy to try to identify them as causative factors... but with clusters such as that, you actually want to look at the total environment of the patients instead of focusing all your energy on pinpointing a single source.

Take a cue from House, M.D. ... (ridiculously convoluted some episodes might be)... ignore nothing, consider everything.

Like the "autism" cluster. Focused on the fact that the parents are well-educated, well-off and white. Does that tell us anything useful? Not completely. It's merely an indicator that they share a common lifestyle, which might mean exposure to a common factor that might contribute to autism. Or it might mean that their lifestyle and their chosen age of childbearing puts them at incredible risk of having genetically damaged children... (Downs is strongly linked to parental age, for example) ...of course, again, I'm leery of any "epidemic of autism" claims because I've seen firsthand how autism, like ADHD, has become a catch-all phrase for doctors to label children with any form of mental deficiency or even minor social inadequacy.

-

It could be there are environmental factors that influence the incidence of autism and brain cancer, but in the case of brain cancer, the signal-to-noise ratio of information regarding this (due to cellphone hysteria) is awfully high.

I won't be surprised if cellphone radiation is eventually linked to cancer in some way... (exposing a pig to an analogue phone turned on twenty four hours a day for ten years, maybe)... but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Niky, thank you for your thoughtful remarks. It's likely I'm a hopeless Cassandra.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini
 
A network security company (McAfee) produced a report that says we need more and better network security? SHOCK!!!

Not sure how this affects the conversation, unless you are pointing out that a reliance on computers gives criminals a new way to attack our infrastructure. Of course, the rebuttal would be that our infrastructure is arguably much more efficient and safe due to the computers.
 
The report said foreign governments were involved in attacking our infrastructure. Stadiums, trade centers and pentagons we personally might do without(?). To be deprived of water and power by some pinhead in China would seriously chap my ass! Yes, relying too much on computers and the internet can be risky. He's not using two cans and a string.
 
Dotini
The report said foreign governments were involved in attacking our infrastructure. Stadiums, trade centers and pentagons we personally might do without(?). To be deprived of water and power by some pinhead in China would seriously chap my ass! Yes, relying too much on computers and the internet can be risky. He's not using two cans and a string.
Click to expand...
A fact I have been very aware of since I was a freshman in college studying computer science.

My point is that no matter what system our infrastructure was designed with it would be under attack and some company that specializes in the security of that system would put out a report every year about how it is happening in hopes that some knee jerk reactions would get them more contracts.

There will not be some Die Hard style fire sale.
 
I freely accept your point that is in the interest of the "Fire Department" to start fires occasionally.
 
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation

This doesn't go away; it just keeps coming back harder and harder.
The Romans unwittingly poisoned themselves with their pewter cups. We have unwittingly been poisoning ourselves with asbestos, cigarettes, lead in plumbing, paint and gasoline, etc. It's one thing to be ignorant and suffer the consequences. It's entirely another to rely on wishful thinking and denial.

Live by the sword, die by the sword,
Dotini
 
Dotini
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation

This doesn't go away; it just keeps coming back harder and harder.
The Romans unwittingly poisoned themselves with their pewter cups. We have unwittingly been poisoning ourselves with asbestos, cigarettes, lead in plumbing, paint and gasoline, etc. It's one thing to be ignorant and suffer the consequences. It's entirely another to rely on wishful thinking and denial.

Live by the sword, die by the sword,
Dotini
Click to expand...
Cell phone radiation is one of those things I have always been curious about, and thus have used hands free headsets for a while now. I was worried when I found out I couldn't get a cell phone near my pacemaker/defibrillator, but calmed down when I realized any electronic device is bad because they all emit some form of EMF. There have also been technological changes that I have so far failed to see these studies take into account. Most people with issues have been using cell phones for a long time and it is hard to say if it is older technology that was the primary factor or if it is the new technology. Simple correlation points primarily to older technology, but it isn't scientific. The problem this presents is that if we over-react we could take out cell phone usage now, thus damaging the economy severely, when the issue may have been resolved five or ten years ago with some technological update in the system.

But of course one needs to weigh the benefits of cellular technology too. How many people have definitely died due to cellular technology and how many lives have been saved due to quick and convenient access to immediate communication? How many people will feel that a cancer risk is worth it because they have managed to model their entire life around their phone?

When do we also realize that everything carries a tiny risk and reacting to a media that feeds on fear is not a sign that our advancements are a curse?

I will take a slightly increased risk of cancer over a greater increased risk of death any day. Recognizing the cost benefit ratio is important and I see much more benefit from technology than cost.
 
FoolKiller
I will take a slightly increased risk of cancer over a greater increased risk of death any day. Recognizing the cost benefit ratio is important and I see much more benefit from technology than cost.
Click to expand...

Foolkiller, I actually agree with all your points. I use a cellphone, too, and accept any risks because of the benefit it gives to me. I would feel very guilty giving a cellphone to a young person whose bones and brain were still in development. Accordingly, I value my friends here at GTP, and wanted to put us all on alert for health threats. I will take it that everyone is sufficiently warned, and will desist from future posts on the topic of cellphones.

Respectfully,
Dotini
 
FoolKiller
A network security company (McAfee) produced a report that says we need more and better network security? SHOCK!!!
Click to expand...
Add to that there is no reason whatsoever to connect mission-critical systems from power plants, water plants, etc. to public networks. So either the people that designed them are idiots and we have serious problems or the report is blown out of proportion.

Granted, if you must connect your mission-critical systems to public networks, you need good network security, but that alone is not going to be sufficient.
 
Dotini
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/study-links-soda-pancreatic-cancer/

Soda linked to pancreatic cancer.
Click to expand...
That study has so many problems that it isn't even funny.
First, trying to apply it to everyone worldwide when out of 60,524 only 140 got pancreatic cancer seems...off. I mean, we are talking between .2 and .3 percent, and this is based on two or more soft drinks a week. Way more than .2% of the population drink two or more soft drinks in a week in places like the US, yet the pancreatic cancer rates don't even match up, particularly with an increased risk of 87%.

Even one of the board members for the publishing journal points out that we should look at this cautiously.
But Susan Mayne of the Yale Cancer Center at Yale University in Connecticut was cautious.

"Although this study found a risk, the finding was based on a relatively small number of cases and it remains unclear whether it is a causal association or not," said Mayne, who serves on the board of the journal, which is published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

"Soft drink consumption in Singapore was associated with several other adverse health behaviors such as smoking and red meat intake, which we can't accurately control for."
Click to expand...
I can easily see a diabetes risk, but this needs much, much more study to get close to proving anything. I hope they found more information than just this after 14 years.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ter-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html

Production of conventional liquid petroleum peaked in 1970 in the United States, and peaked about four years ago globally. Now it is becoming abundantly clear that non-conventional sources of oil such as shale, tar-sand, deep ocean and recovery from gas will peak much sooner than expected. Middle eastern producers of conventional oil such as Saudi Arabia appear to have been lying through their teeth about the true state of their reserves.

If states such as China and India attempt to continue their march toward industrialization and "modern" patterns of consumption, there must be a fearful reckoning in the years immediately ahead. The future of civilization as we know it hangs in the balance, since so much of it depends on liquid oil. There is no acceptable substitute for liquid oil.

(It just so happens that I have a modicum of knowledge about oil. My family has been in the oil and gas business continuously for 95 years. My grandfather worked alongside J Paul Getty in Oklahoma and Louisiana. My father was a petroleum geologist. I personally have explored for oil and gas in Texas, and part of my income is from oil and gas lease royalties.)
 
I was tempted to say that I have as little reason to believe an admitted attack piece from an organization funded by charitable donations as I do a report from a corporation.

But then something struck me as odd. Why would BP lie about having plenty of supply? They would make more profit by claiming supply is down, because that is how supply and demand works. I mean, if their review showed the same thing as the ODAC's then oil prices would go up, sky rocket in fact, and governments would hand then cash for all the research in alternative energy sources that they work on. Heck it would also lead to deregulation on oil exploration, more than what President Obama just (correctly) allowed.

And of course the bans on oil exploration in other areas has to play into this peak oil data. I can't believe that between the numerous places that the US has set as off limits that we would still completely run out, in this time frame.

Something with all the peak oil thing has just never made sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Especially since peak is never absolute. Peak under current production methods, possibly, but that makes no account for improvements in future technology.
 
FoolKiller
I can't believe that between the numerous places that the US has set as off limits that we would still completely run out.

Something with all the peak oil thing has just never made sense to me.
Click to expand...

We will never run completely out of oil. That is not the issue at all.

Peak oil means the maximum of production, the top of the bell curve.

For years world oil production has hovered near the 85 million barrels per day mark. Demand has not yet seriously exceeded supply, so the price is a reasonable $85 per barrel. A bit of that is speculation.

Once supply and demand get out of balance, that's when the price goes to the Moon, suffering, gnashing of teeth and shooting starts.

Anyone vested in the current paradigm will want to put a calming damper on this kind of analysis, because it looks so damnably inevitable.
 
Duke
Especially since peak is never absolute. Peak under current production methods, possibly, but that makes no account for improvements in future technology.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, ever more modern production methods accelerate production (and depletion) from existing fields. The harder we suck on the straw, the emptier the glass gets.

US production peaked in 1970 under relatively primitive production methods. Since then, US production has declined steadily, despite all improvements in production methods and in discovery of new fields, onshore and offshore.
 
Last edited:
Dotini
Anyone vested in the current paradigm will want to put a calming damper on this kind of analysis, because it looks so damnably inevitable.
Click to expand...
Why? Prices would skyrocket. It would be better for profits if they exaggerated the system as being unbalanced.

Dotini
US production peaked in 1970 under relatively primitive production methods. Since then, US production has declined steadily, despite all improvements in production methods and in discovery of new fields, onshore and offshore.
Click to expand...
How many of those newly discovered fields are we allowed to access? The president just opened one, and only a small section of it at that. The reaction from supporters of expanded oil drilling are saying that the majority is still off limits. How much is in that? If we aren't allowed to get it then it doesn't count toward production. Just because it is discovered doesn't mean it helps our output.
 
FoolKiller
Why? Prices would skyrocket. It would be better for profits if they exaggerated the system as being unbalanced.


How many of those newly discovered fields are we allowed to access? The president just opened one, and only a small section of it at that. The reaction from supporters of expanded oil drilling are saying that the majority is still off limits. How much is in that? If we aren't allowed to get it then it doesn't count toward production. Just because it is discovered doesn't mean it helps our output.
Click to expand...

Both are good questions. As to #1, sure, prices and profits would skyrocket. If you are an oil fatcat living in a moated castle, that would be super! It would be a mind bending experience to watch the collapse of civilization from behind 15ft thick stone walls, well stocked with gold and archers.

#2 deserves close scrutiny. My understanding is that "off-limits" reserves are insufficient, even if produced as rapidly as possible, to bring domestic production back anywhere near the 1970 peak. They are there to exploit in the future, and hopefully delay the onset of the steepest part of the bell curve's downside.
 
One possible reason oil companies would want to "pooh-pooh" the peak oil idea is that an industry that is seen to have a stable future is an industry that investors will want to pour money into.

The panic caused by possible peak oil may start a run on oil futures similar to what we suffered in 08... and the consumer market, as we've seen from that experience, simply can't support those kinds of conditions for long.

Which leads to a collapse in oil demand... a collapse in oil futures, and another long, hard slog back up to current prices... which definitely hurts the bottomline, and lean investment in oil futures means less money for oil companies to spend on further oil exploration and development... money that these companies need to stay in business.

Their bottomline depends on a slow and steady increase in the value of oil, and it requires investor confidence... which is built up by the idea that oil "will never run out". Of course... they can't say it will "never run out", but they can project the possible "peak" far out into the future to allay fears that it will and ensure a steady inflow of investment.

Not to mention the fact that "peak oil" will definitely cause market volatility on the demand side. Though what consumers and consumer nations will do is a big unknown. Some, like China and Russia, are already trying to tie up as many supply lines as possible for the perceived coming of the peak. Others may not have a strong enough economy to maintain demand once prices pass a certain point. In any case, it'll be trouble.
 
That's not what happens when a resources is considered scarce. People don't suddenly stop investing in it because they're afraid that it will run out, they buy MORE of it because they know they'll have some when everyone else runs out.

So there's no reason that claiming your resources are scarce hurts your bottom line. If anything, they should bias a little low. Not so low as to make yourself look bad compared to other companies, but low enough to make people think oil should cost more.
 
I'm not saying that there is an actual scarcity... just that the perception of scarcity may cause runaway speculation that may cause another market collapse.
 
niky
I'm not saying that there is an actual scarcity... just that the perception of scarcity may cause runaway speculation that may cause another market collapse.
Click to expand...

Runaway speculation of oil is good for the guys who own the oil. Ask anyone who owns a lot of everything if they'd like to see the price skyrocket and they'll all tell you the same thing... yes.
 

Similar threads

F
Car guys/girls that love engine sounds...how you feeling about the upcoming electric era?
Replies
12
Views
2K
MIE1992
MIE1992
Populuxe
Are you ready for the end of the ICE era?
4 5 6
Replies
158
Views
24K
Eunos_Cosmo
Eunos_Cosmo
Dobermann92
Question about the human nature
Replies
21
Views
1K
Dobermann92
Dobermann92
E
The Human Comedy - Guide for all races
14 15 16
Replies
474
Views
366K
skydragon49
skydragon49
MarwaanZA0
Deep Appreciation for the Work PD Has Put into GT7
Replies
0
Views
906
MarwaanZA0
MarwaanZA0

Latest Posts

Back