Hi,

I'm pretty sure we're on the same side, really - a greater scientific
understanding in the wider community is surely beneficial, and indeed, maybe
here we come back to being on topic - to understand the world we live in is
a very Oily notion.

None of this is helped by the politicisation of the funding of scientific
research - I'm sure a great amount of "scientific controversy" would go away
if the necessity to chase the money, and the resulting conflicts of
interest, went away.

As for your example - while correlation should never be taken to imply
causation, is not the purpose of science to investigate observations,
formulate theory and then test that theory against further observation? It
seems to me that what your example is demonstrating is that when scientific
process is ignored, it harms science. To outright ignore an observation
because it's inconveniently difficult to explain is not scientific, it's
arrogant (not that I'm not guilty of arrogance myself. Perhaps it's time to
get down of this soapbox and lurk for another 2 years).

Nice to see some of you come out to join the conversation, though. It's been
too quiet around here. Perhaps it's time to relax the notion of this being a
mailing list for Midnight Oil related news and discussion, and have it
become a community for those who were brought together by the Oils. We have
a huge diversity of opinion, but surely that can only serve to keep things
interesting. Stop worrying about offending people, and start talking,
methinks!

Chris

On Jan 10, 2008 1:28 PM, Kate Adams <kate@dnki.net> wrote:

Seeker, there is one gaping hole in your reasoning: some people are not
sufficiently scientifically literate to tell hoax from real.  HOWEVER, there
are far too many scientists who confuse a little scientific knowledge with
definitive understanding.  They can make some rather grievous errors as a
result of their hubris.

A decade ago, evidence of a link between air pollution and heart disease
emerged.  It was immediately "discredited" because many, even those in the
field, could not imagine a possible mechanism by which air pollution could
cause heart disease or any cardiovascular effect. While some pooh-poohed the
very notion that it was anything other than confounding and bias because
they *knew* it wasn't possible, the findings popped up again, and again, and
again.

Guess what?  There is a substantial body of emerging mechanistic evidence
that very fine particles penetrate the lung, enter the blood stream, and
mess around with cardiovascular systems - both clotting mechanisms and
neurological responses.  So much for what we think we know because we are
scientists!

Pardon me if I sound a little harsh here - not only am I accustomed to
working with community groups who are patronized by experts who later turn
out to be vastly wrong in their assumptions, I'm in the middle of a mess
caused when a radiologic scientist decided to "properly reanalyze" health
study data collected by one of the researchers we fund.  The guy did
contribute some interesting statistical analyses and hypotheses on his way
to concluding that removing a pollutant source did nothing for population
health, but he also made some absolutely WHOPPINGLY WRONG assumptions out of
blind ignorance of mechanisms of effect that negate his conclusions.  If
only he could use his sophisticated understanding of radiation to mitigate
the ridiculous political fallout ...

Remember - what you know can help you. What you don't know can hurt you.
And what you think you know but don't can royally bite you in the ass.

Cheers,
Dr. kPa

On 1/9/08, Seeker <seeker42@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed. Thank you for stating it so succinctly, or I might have posted
something rather more irate.

I'm always scared by how easily people are deceived by things that are
easily shown to be impossible by an understanding of very basic
physics. Unfortunately, it seems that what I consider "basic physics"
wasn't taught 30 years ago, and so many people carry irrational fears
about (particularly) electricity, computers, microwaves and mobile
phones.

In this case, I suspect that the "plausibility" of the story comes
from a misunderstanding. The inclusion of having to answer the phone
reminds me of the (true) stores about people being killed by lightning
strikes being conducted by their phone lines.

If you value your time, there's no need to read further.

While I'm at it, I'd just like to take a commonsense approach to the
fears of "mobile phone radiation". Yes, I'm well and truly hijacking a
soapbox here, but this forum is pretty quiet these days anyhow.

Many here may know that mobile phones operate using so-called
"microwave radiation". The simplified electromagnetic spectrum looks
as such:

Low Frequency                                     High Frequency
Radio - Microwave - Infrared - Visible Light - UV - Xray - Gamma

Now for the part that isn't taught until elective physics:

e = hf. That is, Energy of a wave is equal to Planck's constant
multiplied by the frequency. Since Planck's constant is a constant, we
can say that energy is directly proportional to frequency.

Thus, we can see why high frequency x-rays and UV light are harmful -
they carry a large amount of energy. Microwaves, on the other hand,
being of a low frequency carry less energy than visible light, and
even than infrared (heat energy). So if you're worried about mobile
phones cooking your brain, I suggest you don't go outside. The risks
are far greater.

Sorry about your time!

Chris

--- In powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au, RM <m2k7@...> wrote:

email warnings about technology, crime, viruses etc are generally all
fakes and should be rebutted promptly to stop their travel.

if you get any warning, especially any that say "FORWARD THIS TO
[everyone in your mail list]", first google a key phrase out of the

mail

(in quotes might help too) and see if it shows up on the regular hoax
monitoring sites:
eg:
I googled : "ever answer a cell phone while it is being RECHARGED"
and found:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_electrocuted.htm
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cell-phone-charging.html
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/cellcharge.asp
as the top 3 listings.  These 3 sites are the regular hoax-busters.

most people have seen enough of these to have already built up a sense
of loathing for both the mails and those who pass them on, but most
people also have to first send one to learn this, so don't feel too
embarrassed, we've all been caught.

Cheers
 RM

Yahoo!7 Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]