how-to block ads
|
AnonGuy101
@bellsouth.net
| Re: I wonder... Well, "David A", you should realize that the very statement "I wonder how many will die of brain cancer" is a sterling example of a particular logical fallacy. It definitely should be "pooh-poohed" as you put it-- with good reason.
Certainly there are higher-order harmonics. But, there's an inverse relationship between their frequency and the power they contain. Thats the reason your brain doesn't fry every time two radio stations interfere with each other...sure, it generates harmonics all the way up the scale. But the total power drops sharply as you go up.
The folks doing the measuring and the studies have seen no evidence of biological damage. Given that, leading questions such as "how many will die?" are based on superstition, not science. | |
| 
DavidEKA
@pacbell.n
| Re: I wonder... TO AnonGuy101:
Wow, there are a couple of things I'd like to say to your response.
1) re: subject matter:
Yes, there is an inverse relation to frequency and power. That doesn't mean that conditions detrimental to a human brain cannot exist under real world conditions. One thousandth of "way too much" may still be "enough" to cause harm. And remember that chronic low-level exposure *can* have effects on living systems while being simultaneously difficult to simulate in short-term studies. But this question is for two sorts of folks to answer, and not us:
- those doing experiments under controlled conditions (labs)
- epidemiologists (after the fact)
Why not us? Because we're a pair of lurkers on a message board, too damned lazy to even post links to already-existing literature on the subject.
2) re: science:
You make two statements, as follow:
"the very statement 'I wonder how many will die of brain cancer' is a sterling example of a particular logical fallacy"
...and then:
"leading questions such as 'how many will die?' are based on superstition, not science"
I'm not sure what you could mean by "logical fallacy," since the question "how many will die of brain cancer" contains no statement. It's a question.
I'm also not quite sure what issue you have with leading questions. In my opinion, every single question ever answered by science has been a leading question. Isn't every hypothesis formulated as "I believe x to be true?" Can you get any more "leading" than that (see further discussion below)?
Honestly, I was never taught that leading questions were the stuff of superstition. Instead, I was taught that leading questions can taint experimental results. In other words, if I believe the moon is made of cheese, and I cannot conceive otherwise (and especially if a cheese company is paying to send me there), then I am more likely to design experiments that confirm this and to massage data to fit my pre-conceived notion. I have a stake in the results, and I lack the vision to see an alternative hypothesis.
The way science combats such bias is NOT by batting away honest questions by labelling them "superstition." Instead, science invites everyone in the world to examine the same hypothesis. If enough motivated people with varying biases design experiments to test that hypothesis, eventually (we hope) a repeatable experiment emerges that either supports or undermines it.
But you have to start with a hypothesis. Otherwise, what is being tested?
The question "How many people will die of brain cancer" is, in my humble opinion, supremely scientific. Why? Because it asks for something quantifiable ("how many individuals"), and definable ("deaths" attributable to "brain cancer," where both death and brain cancer are pretty clearly definable). It also makes no a-priori assumptions, since the result can be zero. Sounds like a hypothesis that can be tested!
On the other hand, if you *were* to make a *truly* leading question -- one that contains an a-priori assumption -- it might look like this:
- for the moon-made-of-cheese: "What kind of cheese is the moon made of?" (assumption: the moon *is* made of cheese)
- for our brain cancer study: "What kind of cancer is this radiation causing?" (assumption: the radiation *is* causing cancer)
There, I would see your problem with the latter hypotheses: it is based on an assumption that may be false (time to "pooh-pooh?" the question? Why no! Time to check that assumption as a separate hypothesis!).
So what got you riled up?
Perhaps you assume that the poster is saying people *are* going to die of brain cancer. But the question, as posed, admits to an answer of "zero." How many will die? Zero! Or maybe fifty out of every million. Or maybe one. Who (here on this thread) knows? It has to be tested.
And it has been, according to your post. So let's have some links, baby! Post 'em, I double-dog-dare you!
--David A. | |
| |
AnonGuy101
@bellsouth.net
| Re: I wonder... Oops again, DavidA.
> I'm not sure what you could mean by "logical fallacy,"
> since the question "how many will die of brain cancer"
> contains no statement. It's a question.
The logical fallacy is the "leading question", one of the standard errors any student of logic 101 learns. Here's a link, since you value them so highly:
»washington.uwc.edu/about/faculty···cies.htm
You fail to understand what a "leading question" is, if you think science is based upon them. Perhaps you likewise feel the question, "how many people will die this year from alien invaders from Zim?" is another serious topic for research?
Point 2, the mere suggestion that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer shows a weak understanding of the underlying science, and makes me doubt your credentials of a BA in Physics...I have a BS in Physics myself. Did you skip E&M totally? Radio waves don't contain enough energy to break molecular bonds...even if you're standing directly under a 100,000 Watt broadcast tower. Enough power can cause heating...but not ionization.
Another link for you:
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields »www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Whatis···ex1.html
In short, you're selling superstition-- not science. After you prove the existence of cold fusion and perpetual motion machines...come back and tell us how the question of cancer from wireless routers should be taken seriously. | |
| | | |
|
