Are scientists always trustworthy? Should we believe everything they say?

[Happeh]

My experience with people here shows they blindly obey anyone with a framed piece of paper with a gold star on it, or anyone in a suit. I think a reasonable question is

"Are scientists or authority trustworthy? Or should I think on my own?


This story is about how the government is for corporations making profits, instead of being for people like us being healthy. Many studies showing cell phones cause cancer have been released. They have all been ignored to sell cell phones.


People who have used mobile phones for 10 years or more have an increased risk of brain tumours, three European research groups have found.

A correlation between the tumour's location and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone was found in two of the studies.

Two of the studies, one in Britain and one in Germany, are part of the 13-nation Interphone Study, an effort sanctioned by the World Health Organisation to assess possible health risks from the radiation emitted by mobile phones.

Both studies found an increased risk of glioma, an often deadly brain cancer, in people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more.

An earlier Interphone study, reported in October 2004 by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, found an increased risk for a non-cancerous brain tumour called acoustic neuroma after 10 years of mobile phone use, but not for glioma.

"When you put the three large Interphone results together, the German, English and Swedish, they tell a story, and it begs for attention," said Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News, who has been reporting on the health effects of such radiation for two decades.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...e-users-studies/2006/02/03/1138958906867.html

 

[leopold]

concerning your post
you are lying when you say that you can tell a person masturbates by looking at their picture

 

[RoyLennigan]

people blindly obey or believe a lot of things, not just science. you are only looking at one small piece of the pie in this post and not the whole picture.

the big difference in science is that you do not rely only on the scientists to gain information. you have the option to make observations on your own and see for yourself if they are right or not. science revolves around the idea that all experiments should be repeatable so that anyone can see the outcome for themselves. this is why science is so credible.

it has been my experience that the mob usually places the blame on the people who discover or reveal problems rather than the actual source of those problems. this is largely due to the layman's misunderstanding and their desire to have a scapegoat on which to blame their problems.

and how individuals are usually concerned with their own success and gradually require more and more as they become accustomed to a rich lifestyle. the business men who run the world by pushing money here or there at their whim or the whim of their clients. the government is not directly for corporations making profits, its just that sometimes government officials have ties to wealthy corporations (through shares or other means) and the wealth of the company is proportional to the wealth of the government in some way. wealth has replaced survival in the game of natural selection when it comes to society and economy.

 

[Dinosaur]

Happeh: I do not believe that there are any credible studies showing that cell phones cause brain cancer. I would like to see some citations.

I trust scientists far more than I would trust politicians, clergy, or celebrities.

BTW: I would not put down scientists because there are people who blindly trust idiots with diplomas.

You might be judging scientists by some of the teachers you have had. There is a big difference between real scientists and those who are only teachers of science. I went to some very good schools and my teachers were generally competent & trustworthy, but they were not really scientists.

From what I have read and from some teachers I have known as social friends, I have come to believe that there are a lot of teachers who could not train a dog. I am reminded of a neighbor who had a badly trained dog. He always commented on how well trained our dog was. I asked my father why the neighbor could not train his dog. He replied.

In order to be able to train a dog, you have to be smarter than the dog.

 

[devils_reject]

I trust scientists far more than I would trust politicians, clergy, or celebrities

Let me just put it this way. The tier 1 sciences and discoveries are known only by the elite and powerful, becasue knowledge is how you stay in power, while the tier 2 and 3 sciences are fed to most of us in schools. Usually sciences and research is funded by wealthy politicians and business lords alike and every discovery benefits the sponsors far more than the peasants. In fact elite cults from all ages were formed due to important discoveries or endevours, in the middle ages medicine was practiced and known only to elite clans before it eventually propagated. some examples of this clans are the knights Templars, illuminatis, lions club, and freemasons. The freemasons are said to evolve from a committe of ancient archiects. They were actually called Masons, and a freemason was an architect who was permited to leave town while working. Anyway the same shit still happens today. So do I trust scientists? Depends on who they are working for and why but I generally trust their work.

I

have come to believe that there are a lot of teachers who could not train a dog. I am reminded of a neighbor who had a badly trained dog. He always commented on how well trained our dog was. I asked my father why the neighbor could not train his dog. He replied.

Me too buddy, personally its usually harder for me to understand female teachers

 

[Facial]

"Are scientists or authority trustworthy? Or should I think on my own?

You should do both. As for the cell phone study, the evidence you present is indeed valid, but it doesn't point out the whole truth.

Certainly, the study done by the UN far exceeds the qualities of your fake drawings, and is therefore scientific.

Good job. You interpreted this one normally.

 

[Facial]

People who have used mobile phones for 10 years or more have an increased risk of brain tumours, three European research groups have found.

A correlation between the tumour's location and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone was found in two of the studies.

Two of the studies, one in Britain and one in Germany, are part of the 13-nation Interphone Study, an effort sanctioned by the World Health Organisation to assess possible health risks from the radiation emitted by mobile phones.

Both studies found an increased risk of glioma, an often deadly brain cancer, in people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more.

An earlier Interphone study, reported in October 2004 by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, found an increased risk for a non-cancerous brain tumour called acoustic neuroma after 10 years of mobile phone use, but not for glioma.

"When you put the three large Interphone results together, the German, English and Swedish, they tell a story, and it begs for attention," said Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News, who has been reporting on the health effects of such radiation for two decades.

The proper emphasis is put in bold.

So far, we have no reason to believe that cell phones are dangerous to our health.

 

[Light]

The proper emphasis is put in bold.

So far, we have no reason to believe that cell phones are dangerous to our health.

Yeah, and he also saw fit to NOT include the final statements from the article he quoted:

"They said the number of people in the study who had used the phones for 10 years was small, and the findings needed to be confirmed by other studies.

The British researchers compared a group of 966 brain tumour patients with a group of 1716 healthy patients who had not used mobile phones. They found a 20 per cent increase in cancers among long-term users, but no overall increased risk in people who used the phones."

(Underlining mine.)

So tell us one again, Happeth, who is it we should not trust? Scientists or rather some fool who extracts only the information he wants and suppress the part he doesn't want to show???

Personally, I'd trust any ten-year-old over a "Happeth" any day!

 

[Anomalous]

It all depends on who get the fundings to do the research. For example Light lost a debate with me regarding speed of light being fast or slow. He may get fundings, because he is not good enough, his end result will be worng science.

Its not that Light will lie, but its just that he is confused and hence his research. Here is the proof http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51619

 

[Light]

It all depends on who get the fundings to do the research. For example Light lost a debate with me regarding speed of light being fast or slow. He may get fundings, because he is not good enough, his end result will be worng science.

Its not that Light will lie, but its just that he is confused and hence his research. Here is the proof http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51619

Ha! Lost a debate to YOU??? Never happen. And I wasn't even aware you considered it a debate. I was simply answering your questions in a friendly, straight-forward manner. Sorry , but you're the one who doesn't understand what light and the Doppler effect is all about, even after all the answers and examples you were given.

Instead of linking to the whole thread, would you kindly just paste the part where you claim to have "won" - what wasn't even a contest?

 

[leopold]

Yeah, and he also saw fit to NOT include the final statements from the article he quoted:

"They said the number of people in the study who had used the phones for 10 years was small, and the findings needed to be confirmed by other studies.

The British researchers compared a group of 966 brain tumour patients with a group of 1716 healthy patients who had not used mobile phones. They found a 20 per cent increase in cancers among long-term users, but no overall increased risk in people who used the phones."

(Underlining mine.)

So tell us one again, Happeth, who is it we should not trust? Scientists or rather some fool who extracts only the information he wants and suppress the part he doesn't want to show???

Personally, I'd trust any ten-year-old over a "Happeth" any day!

happeh should pay close attention
everywhere he has went on the internet he was banned from

he comes here and is not banned so he figures that he can pull
this kind of bullshit. i would be a little more careful if i were you happeh

why don't you just give it up?

 

[Happeh]

So tell us one again, Happeth, who is it we should not trust? Scientists or rather some fool who extracts only the information he wants and suppress the part he doesn't want to show???

Personally, I'd trust any ten-year-old over a "Happeth" any day!

Now you are talking to me Light? Why the sudden change? You have been ignoring me for weeks now.

I would council you to remember the phrase "There are WMD in Iraq" when you read that article. Or when you quote it back at me.

You, and the majority of this forums membership can lie to anyone right in the face. I tested all of you. Each and every one of you lied directly to my face without a second thought.

 

[Happeh]

Instead of linking to the whole thread, would you kindly just paste the part where you claim to have "won" - what wasn't even a contest?

Come on Light! You know that after he shows that he was right and you were wrong, you will run away and refuse to talk to him anymore because he is "crazy, delusional, fool, insert derogatory adjective here".

 

[Light]

Now you are talking to me Light? Why the sudden change? You have been ignoring me for weeks now.

I would council you to remember the phrase "There are WMD in Iraq" when you read that article. Or when you quote it back at me.

You, and the majority of this forums membership can lie to anyone right in the face. I tested all of you. Each and every one of you lied directly to my face without a second thought.

Only very briefly. I still ignore all your posts unless they happen to pop up in a thread that interests me. And even then, they usually still get ignored.

But I just saw that I need to make one more response to yest another post then it's back into digital oblivion with you, idiot!

 

[Light]

Come on Light! You know that after he shows that he was right and you were wrong, you will run away and refuse to talk to him anymore because he is "crazy, delusional, fool, insert derogatory adjective here".

He can show me no such thing. As to running away, not in the least and not on your life. I choose who I want to interact with and generally do not like the company of low-lifes like you. That's why you're ignored.

Come to think of it, it doesn't appear that anyone here likes you one bit. Gee, I wonder why that is? Perhaps they don't like a low-life either????

 

[Ophiolite]

Each and every one of you lied directly to my face without a second thought.

1.Specify where I lied directly to you, you putrefying bastard. The one form of attack I shall not tolerate on this or any other forum is an accusation of lying. Identify where I have lied you rat fink gangrenous upstart or give me the address of your lawyer.
2. Of course I took a second thought. You think I would lie to you without carefully crafting and editing it.
3.I think I am beginning to get the hang of how Happeh and other idiots manage to spout contradictory nonsense without so much as a flicker.

 

[leopold]

Each and every one of you lied directly to my face without a second thought.

i agree with ophiolite
i don't remember lying to you happeh
in anything i said or the links i posted

 

[guthrie]

ACtually, I couldnt work out what anomalous was on about in that thread, so I declared Light the winner.

 

[Gustav]

hey
the above incident is proof that scientists suck and are liars

 

[leopold]

ACtually, I couldnt work out what anomalous was on about in that thread, so I declared Light the winner.

i read it too and came to the conclusion that anomalous likes to flap

i too declare light the winner