Chernobyl

Sort of like "The Bookshelf" but for... you get the idea.
User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:58 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:24 am
You are suggesting that if idea A is wrong, then idea B must also be wrong, even though the two ideas are unconnected.

Even for you, landrew, that is crappy illogic.
Inductive reasoning.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:36 am

No. It is just really, really crappy thinking.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:30 pm

I happen to agree with some of the highest authorities on the subject:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566758/

You choose to side with quackery.
Still think there's a point to continuing?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:36 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:30 pm
I happen to agree with some of the highest authorities on the subject:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566758/

You choose to side with quackery.
Still think there's a point to continuing?
BWHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!

As so often happens: you provide a link that negates your position. What is it with you?

ftl and the POINT OF IT: "HORMESIS: GENERAL PRINCIPLE ONLY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS": and what else is low dose background radiation? What I skimmed in 20 seconds did not even address radiation. Course, if you can't identify the subject of a discussion, that won't stop you from claiming otherwise.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 pm

Landrew is merely pointing out what I said from the beginning. Radiation hormesis in humans is controversial and many researchers still deny it. But there are also many other researchers who have done the work and shown the evidence. At this stage, it is like the first years after Australian researchers showed that ulcers are due to a bacterium. The medical majority refused to believe. Finally, when enough evidence accumulated, they had to.

The problem with radiation hormesis is that for ethical reasons no researcher is permitted to do direct radiation experiments on people. So they have to work with epidemiology. The cumulative results are convincing to me, but many still remain unconvinced. For example, Professor Cameron showed that workers on nuclear ship building have lower cancer rates, after being exposed to more radiation, compared to workers on conventional ships. But epidemiological results are less convincing than direct experiments.

Direct experiments on animals show radiation hormesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5106546/

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 pm
Landrew is merely pointing out what I said from the beginning. Radiation hormesis in humans is controversial and many researchers still deny it.......
No. Lamedude doesn't understand his own reference points. Not an uncommon feature.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:27 pm

Nor do I think this is a case or believe or not believe. This is not religion. It is just a case of assessing evidence. At this stage, the evidence for radiation hormesis in laboratory organisms is overwhelming. The evidence for radiation hormesis in humans is still not 100% convincing. My own view is that it is extremely unlikely that it would work for other organisms and not humans, and that the more limited epidemiological evidence is strongly indicative. But it is true that some researchers still refuse to believe that radiation hormesis in humans is a reality. I would be happy with landrew's rationality, if he were just to say it is possible. No need for a declaration of faith.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:27 pm
I would be happy with landrew's rationality, if he were just to say it is possible. No need for a declaration of faith.
Ergo: he's not being rational. As stated: all too common.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:57 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:27 pm
I would be happy with landrew's rationality, if he were just to say it is possible. No need for a declaration of faith.
Ergo: he's not being rational. As stated: all too common.
You're just going to have to accept the fact that there's always room for doubt. That's skepticism.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:11 pm

As so often stated: thats not the issue.

Try again.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am

Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am
Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?
It works both ways of course, but I don't want any radiation hitting my body that I can avoid.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:03 am

Well, I am sorry, landrew, but your body is being hit by radiation all the time. Not only that, but as a 21st century citizen who moves around, you will inadvertently travel through areas where radiation levels are orders of magnitude higher than the average. You cannot avoid it, and it does you no harm, unless by chance you encounter something that is massively more radioactive, which is very unlikely.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:03 am
Well, I am sorry, landrew, but your body is being hit by radiation all the time. Not only that, but as a 21st century citizen who moves around, you will inadvertently travel through areas where radiation levels are orders of magnitude higher than the average. You cannot avoid it, and it does you no harm, unless by chance you encounter something that is massively more radioactive, which is very unlikely.
Until someone can provide data which shows that a human fully shielded from all radiation lives a shorter life than one exposed to a lifetime of background radiation, I'll assume that less radiation is healthier.

I acknowledge all your studies that seem to show some benefits to radiation, but I believe they are offset by long-term negative effects and earlier death. I don't need you to do any more thinking for me, thanks.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35081
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Gord » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:59 am

landrew wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:36 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am
Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?
It works both ways of course, but I don't want any radiation hitting my body that I can avoid.
In other words, "there's no gray area".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:01 am

Gord wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:59 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:36 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am
Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?
It works both ways of course, but I don't want any radiation hitting my body that I can avoid.
In other words, "there's no gray area".
If you found out that a hacker was stealing $1 a month from your bank account...
yeah, no gray area.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:21 pm

Landrew's attitude reminds me of certain organic food enthusiasts who are paranoid about synthetic pesticide residues in food. They claim they want exactly zero synthetic pesticide residues in their food and think that is reasonable. At the same time, they are happy to eat white potatoes that contain 10,000 times as much toxic alkaloid (a natural pesticide called solanine) as the synthetic pesticide residue, even when they are told that this natural material is many times more toxic gram for gram. Their lack of rational thinking allows for no grey area.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:02 pm

Nature abhors a vacuum. /// A better analogy: Nature abhors mixing matter and anti-matter... //// Hmmm....sounded better in my head. Many analogies/metaphors are like that.

I think I said it better first: arguments used in support actually demonstrate the opposite. Yea Verily.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35081
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Gord » Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:51 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:01 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:59 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:36 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am
Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?
It works both ways of course, but I don't want any radiation hitting my body that I can avoid.
In other words, "there's no gray area".
If you found out that a hacker was stealing $1 a month from your bank account...
yeah, no gray area.
It's funny that when you "find out" something, there's no gray area, but when others "find out" something, they're "skeptics behaving badly". You are a hypochrite.

I'm a hypochrite too, but at least I'm vaguely self-aware. :beee:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:04 am

Gord wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:51 pm
landrew wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:01 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:59 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:36 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am
Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?
It works both ways of course, but I don't want any radiation hitting my body that I can avoid.
In other words, "there's no gray area".
If you found out that a hacker was stealing $1 a month from your bank account...
yeah, no gray area.
It's funny that when you "find out" something, there's no gray area, but when others "find out" something, they're "skeptics behaving badly". You are a hypochrite.

I'm a hypochrite too, but at least I'm vaguely self-aware. :beee:
Blame it on my advanced education in biology if you like, but I'd prefer to remain radiation-free as much as possible. It's in my "no gray area" category along with fentanyl and suicide. Certain things are all bad to me.
I don't tell you how to think.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:27 am

I have seen no sign of advanced biology knowledge. Quite the reverse. Landrew does not believe in the simple principle of healing. He believes that even tiny levels of harm cause long term damage. That flies in the face of even basic knowledge of biology.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:30 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:27 am
I have seen no sign of advanced biology knowledge. Quite the reverse. Landrew does not believe in the simple principle of healing. He believes that even tiny levels of harm cause long term damage. That flies in the face of even basic knowledge of biology.
Its all ENTROPY man!
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:27 am
I have seen no sign of advanced biology knowledge. Quite the reverse. Landrew does not believe in the simple principle of healing. He believes that even tiny levels of harm cause long term damage. That flies in the face of even basic knowledge of biology.
It's not strictly relevant, but I do have a masters degree in biology. You don't have to believe me, but I won't break my anonymity to show it to you.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:02 am

I agree. If your degree in biology is not relevant to your postings here on biology, then they are being manufactured persuant to some other issue.

Taa-DAH!!!!!! I assume Its ENTROPY, man!!!

Please tell us: Is it entropy? Is this the source of your postings on biology????
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35081
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Gord » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:14 am

landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:04 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:51 pm
landrew wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:01 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:59 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:36 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:55 am
Landrew

I am totally happy to admit there is room for doubt. Will you admit that there is a real possibility it might be correct ?
It works both ways of course, but I don't want any radiation hitting my body that I can avoid.
In other words, "there's no gray area".
If you found out that a hacker was stealing $1 a month from your bank account...
yeah, no gray area.
It's funny that when you "find out" something, there's no gray area, but when others "find out" something, they're "skeptics behaving badly". You are a hypochrite.

I'm a hypochrite too, but at least I'm vaguely self-aware. :beee:
Blame it on my advanced education in biology if you like....
I'm pretty sure that's what I just said -- when you "find out" something, there's no gray area, but when others "find out" something, they're "skeptics behaving badly".
I don't tell you how to think.
You just tell us all we're bad for not thinking like you.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:42 pm

Gord wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:14 am
landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:04 am
I don't tell you how to think.
You just tell us all we're bad for not thinking like you.
Thanks for telling everyone what you think I want everyone to think.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:40 pm

landrew says: "I know the science says 2+2=4 but I believe that 2+2=5 because of my advanced degrees that aren't relevant to what I post." Then 10% of the time: a link to 2+2=4.

"But don't tell me how to think."

Assuming performance art is not the operating principle here and that entropy is not disrupting the equations, it kinda looks to me landrew is on brain cruise accepting without modification/update/reversal the very first things he learned during his education. Going to only the best schools will give landrew and excellent broad base on which to have his ideas set in concrete. Only wrong........now and then.

Hey landrew: do what I did and posted. I also rejected hormesis as anti my common sense because you know: I studied poetry in college. Lances evidence/argument/links got me to simply "come off a hard rejection." There is a space between hide bound and fluttering in the breeze.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35081
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Gord » Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:03 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:42 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:14 am
landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:04 am
I don't tell you how to think.
You just tell us all we're bad for not thinking like you.
Thanks for telling everyone what you think I want everyone to think.
You're welcome for my explanation of your actions. If you think a correction is in order, perhaps you couuld stop doing what you've been doing.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:08 pm

Gord wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:03 pm
landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:42 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:14 am
landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:04 am
I don't tell you how to think.
You just tell us all we're bad for not thinking like you.
Thanks for telling everyone what you think I want everyone to think.
You're welcome for my explanation of your actions. If you think a correction is in order, perhaps you couuld stop doing what you've been doing.
There's an awful lot of certainty in your world, isn't there?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:16 pm

No, I get it Gord. Certitude is very comforting. You don't need to think any farther. That's how religions are built.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:35 pm

lamedude: Man: you don't miss a trick. ITS YOUR CERTAINTY that is at issue:
landrew wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:04 am
....... It's in my "no gray area" category ...........
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:21 pm

"There's nothing to learn when you know everything." Such is the curse of certitude.
I never understood the compulsion to rush to an instant verdict without looking into the evidence. I prefer the "gray basket" approach. For some questions, there's plenty of time to weigh the evidence before you settle on a conclusion. I guess that explains why some skeptics deliver such lame, dismissive explanations to answer unexplained mysteries.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:35 pm
lamedude: Man: you don't miss a trick. ITS YOUR CERTAINTY that is at issue:
I'll never match your certainty to stick with some of your incredibly stupid statements, long after they've been soundly refuted.
Nothing remotely approaching contrition there.
Spoiler:
1. Flying into a cloud and then going into an intentional spin to get out. 2. Dumping fuel from an airliner and imagining it's a fuel-air bomb.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:31 am

Landrew

You have been declaring certainty on this issue. "No grey area" were your words.
But radiation hormesis is a very grey area. The evidence for its existence in laboratory animals is beyond reasonable doubt. Its existence in humans is still in dispute, as I have said. But your statement that any radiation at all is harmful is definitely wrong. After all, our ancestors have lived with background radiation for 4 billion years, and there is that little thing called evolution. The American government set 50 millisieverts as a legal maximum exposure for nuclear power plant workers, and that is based on a large number of studies, none of which showed any harm from that exposure (or indeed, from exposures quite a bit more).

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:31 am
Landrew

You have been declaring certainty on this issue. "No grey area" were your words.
But radiation hormesis is a very grey area. The evidence for its existence in laboratory animals is beyond reasonable doubt. Its existence in humans is still in dispute, as I have said. But your statement that any radiation at all is harmful is definitely wrong. After all, our ancestors have lived with background radiation for 4 billion years, and there is that little thing called evolution. The American government set 50 millisieverts as a legal maximum exposure for nuclear power plant workers, and that is based on a large number of studies, none of which showed any harm from that exposure (or indeed, from exposures quite a bit more).
For me, radiation damage is no gray area. Many things in life aren't. I'm not convinced that low-level radiation is beneficial. I don't share that certainty. Many expert sources agree. It seems odd to keep pursuing this.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:34 am

An interesting corollary to this radiation nonsense is the Newark lead crisis:
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/newark-ha ... -in-water/
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:57 am

As I said, low level radiation benefits to humans is controversial, so expressing doubt there is OK. But trying to suggest that no radiation levels are safe is flying directly against masses of solid data, and is not OK. At least not OK if you want to be seen as rational.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:50 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:57 am
As I said, low level radiation benefits to humans is controversial, so expressing doubt there is OK. But trying to suggest that no radiation levels are safe is flying directly against masses of solid data, and is not OK. At least not OK if you want to be seen as rational.
So say you. It's poor behavior on your part to suggest that I'm not thinking properly based on disagreement with you. It's also questionable that you have ignored all my posted rationale, wholesale.
I haven't ignored yours, I have provided refuting arguments, wherever I can.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:17 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:50 pm

I haven't ignored yours, I have provided refuting arguments, wherever I can.
No........you provided repetitive "no gray area" denials while providing Links to reputable sources that disagreed with your position. Do you understand what your link to beneficial effects of background ENVIRONMENTAL effects actually meant?===>in opposition to what you posted?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11685
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:17 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:50 pm

I haven't ignored yours, I have provided refuting arguments, wherever I can.
No........you provided repetitive "no gray area" denials while providing Links to reputable sources that disagreed with your position. Do you understand what your link to beneficial effects of background ENVIRONMENTAL effects actually meant?===>in opposition to what you posted?
And you're drunk as usual.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.