13-11-2004 00:07									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Technically, lung cancer from smoking isn't "proven" either.

	13-11-2004 00:12									#32
	Put an end to popups!

What are you talking about diss?
I'm on the side of those who think people always exagerate about the atomic bomb.
For example, more people died in the napalm raids in Tokyo in one night than in both atomic bombs.

But it IS proven that radiation increases the chance of mutation in new born babies which in turn increases the chance of almost any kind of defect you can think of...

	13-11-2004 00:13									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lul Thyme What are you talking about diss? I'm on the side of those who think people always exagerate about the atomic bomb. For example, more people died in the napalm raids in Tokyo in one night than in both atomic bombs. But it IS proven that radiation increases the chance of mutation in new born babies which in turn increases the chance of almost any kind of defect you can think of...

so you are saying we have muties running around this world then?

	13-11-2004 00:14									#34
	Remove this text

In my experience it's usually the hysterical medai and public that voice the possible effects of science. See: GM foods.

	13-11-2004 00:15									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Elok Technically, lung cancer from smoking isn't "proven" either.

I also have idea what you are talking about?
What does proven mean in this sense?
There is a high positive statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
That means people who smoke have more lung cancer.
No of course correlation is not proof for causation.
But you'll never strictly prove causation in this case of setting or in fact in anything at all strictly speaking.

	13-11-2004 00:16									#36
	Got spare money?

all I know is what I was taught. It is entirely possible the goverment was feeding me wrong information.

I have worked with ionizing radiation, and had training to its effects.

While it hasn't been proven that radiation causes birth defects, they usually remove pregnant women from nuke power plants after their first trimester. Which was a moot point, since we had no women in the program .

Hell, they can't even prove radiation causes cancer. Although we all suspect it does. So their justification is we try to keep it as low as possible. Even though we were allowed up to 5 REM a year, we never got anywhere near that. I ended up with oever 600 millirem throughout my entire career. Though this does not include neutron, alpha or beta radiation. Our detectors only measured gamma radiation.

	13-11-2004 00:18									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dissident so you are saying we have muties running around this world then?

Well actually all of us are muties in a certain sense...

What do you think si teh cause of variation from the gene pool in the long run?
Mutation!!
Mostly caused by radiation, which there is all around as you were trying to say I think.
Mutation is the only way for genes to vary in the long term, and are a cetnral process to evolution.
You even have genes that control how much mutation is allowed from one generation to another (they can go wrong sometimes though)

When mutations get out of hand, that is a bad thing, evolution wise.




On a individual basis, though, many mutations are a bad thing, which is why big doses of radiations are not good....

	13-11-2004 00:20									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Dissident all I know is what I was taught. It is entirely possible the goverment was feeding me wrong information. I have worked with ionizing radiation, and had training to its effects. While it hasn't been proven that radiation causes birth defects, they usually remove pregnant women from nuke power plants after their first trimester. Which was a moot point, since we had no women in the program . Hell, they can't even prove radiation causes cancer. Although we all suspect it does. So their justification is we try to keep it as low as possible. Even though we were allowed up to 5 REM a year, we never got anywhere near that. I ended up with oever 600 millirem throughout my entire career. Though this does not include neutron, alpha or beta radiation. Our detectors only measured gamma radiation.

Well I dont know where you got your information.
When Chernobyl exploded, the first crews to get on site (firefighters, helicopter people) all died within weeks.
All they were exposed to was radiation.
What do you think caused their death?
Some assassin from the government to keep up the facade that radiation was bad?
(BTw many more thousands died over the next FEW years, hundreds, just in the helicopter crews.)

	13-11-2004 00:21									#39
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lul Thyme Well I dont know where you got your information. When Chernobyl exploded, the first crews to get on site (firefighters, helicopter people) all died within weeks. All they were exposed to was radiation. What do you think caused their death? Some assassin from the government to keep up the facade that radiation was bad? (BTw many more thousands died over the next FEW years, hundreds, just in the helicopter crews.)

they died from the radiation of course!

but they didn't die from birth defects, nor did they die from cancer.

and I have heard figures that 10's of thousands have died from cancer, but I have never seen any evidence backing this up.

I want proof that tens of thousands of people died from chernobyl.

	13-11-2004 00:21									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Its like everything.
It depends on the dose.
There is radiation everywhere, some place more than other.
Im not saying to be hysterical, but heavy doses of radiation WILL kill you, if the dose is heavy enough, even instantly....

	13-11-2004 00:22									#41
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dissident they died from the radiation of course! but they didn't die from birth defects, nor did they die from cancer.

Well ok the birth defect part I wont answer.
But actually a lot of those who died over the next 2-3 years DID die from cancer, and many more of them got it then could be explained by any other means that the radiation.

	13-11-2004 00:23									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

So in fact radiation does cause cancer.
But also, at some point, I wonder what is the poitn of arguing if radiation kills you just by itself or by giving you cancer first??

	13-11-2004 00:24									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

heavy doses of radiation kills cells. This is proven. This is what kills you. (and it's also why they use radiation therapy to treat cancer- the idea is to kill cancer cells off)

	13-11-2004 00:30									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

@Diss: Why, then, do you think that child leukaemia, along with various other cancer, is thru the roof in Belarus?

	13-11-2004 00:37									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yes, correlation does not equal causation, and yes, that was my point; with that strong of a correlation you'd be stupid to keep it up whether it was proven or not. It's also unethical to unambiguously test this sort of thing in a lab; who gives grants to people who irradiate pregnant women to see if they can deform their kids? All we have to go by is case studies, which aren't "proof." Even with no evidence at all, given the way just about anything can affect the development of the unborn child, it would be a reasonable guess that prolonged exposure to radiation will cause problems.

Working in a nuclear plant should not cause conditions analogous to living under radioactive fallout. The natives living near Bikini Atoll didn't have full-body rad suits, or lead shields. They were also eating and drinking food and water contaminated by the "reactor," which contained traces of radioactive particles instead of just radiation.

	13-11-2004 01:03									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I've actually taught bioethics and ethics in science and I sympathize with Kuci.

The problem is not that there isn't a need for ethics in science, but that the vast majority of what gets discussed is silly and often motivated by religious impulses. Despite being debunked year after year some idiots insist on talking about "playing God" and other such idiocies.

If it is done properly it can be both useful and interesting for scientists.

The last time I taught this stuff, we spent a lot of time talking about problems with the environment and things like tradable pollution permits and the tragedy of the commons. We also talked about how markets tend to undervalue things like national parks, and the effects of IT and genetic testing on individual privacy.

This is all interesting stuff, but it tends to get overshadowed by the religious twits.

	13-11-2004 01:06									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor In addition, ethicists are a benefit to society. The average ethicist thinks a lot more about morality than the average person, and society can benefit from that extra critical thinking.

Yay! We should have paid professionals telling us what to think!

quote: Lastly, I find it a bit ironic that you say you don't want people telling you what your ethics are, but your stance is that you are saying scientists should have no concerns for the ethical implications of their research. -Drachasor

I'm saying I'm sick of hearing, whenever we have some biologist as a speaker at our school, or we read some article in class, or watch a video, about the ethical implications. I don't care. I've heard it all before, and it's just annoying by now. They've made their point.

	13-11-2004 01:08									#48
	Re: Re: scientists need to GET OVER IT Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Cruddy ...I think you missed the point. The atomic bomb is still killing people and will continue to do so when you and I are maggot food.

I think you missed my point in being pedantic about what tense I used.

quote: Read my reply and ask yourself the question again. I think the point they were making is that a science decision can have implications 1,000s (yes, thousands) of years down the road. Is it really so evil to try and make people think, rather than following the herd?

After about the fiftieth time you've made the same point, yes.

	13-11-2004 01:17									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yay! We should have paid professionals telling us what to think!

Yes. They are called teachers.

	13-11-2004 01:26									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Yes. They are called teachers.

Thought it is closer to say they go over how people think, encourage you to think, and say what has been thought about a particular issue.

The ethicists aren't telling people how to think, they are sharing their thoughts and others thoughts on the matter, and the related reasoning. They never say "think this:..." or anything like that. Well, except for things that are demonstrably or clearly true.

-Drachasor

	13-11-2004 01:28									#51
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Thought it is closer to say they go over how people think, encourage you to think, and say what has been thought about a particular issue.

To teach people how to think you have to teach them what to think. You have to teach them about validity, soundness, rational persuasiveness, etc.

	13-11-2004 02:07									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed "Gather round as I sing you of Werner von Braun A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience Call him a Nazi and he won't even frown Nazi, Schmazi says Werner von Braun Don't say that he's hypocritical Say rather that he's apolitical 'Once ze rockets go up, who cares where zey come down? That's not my department' says Werner von Braun. Some have harsh words for this man of renown But some say our attitude Should be one of gratitude Like the widows and cripples of old London town Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun You too can be such a hero If you can count backward to zero 'In English unt German, I know how to count down Unt I'm learning Chinese!' says Werner von Braun"

Titled "He aims for the stars but sometimes hits London", as I recall...

	13-11-2004 02:32									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't know about any ethical issues dealing with the atomic bomb

Jon Miller

	13-11-2004 02:45									#54
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lul Thyme What are you talking about diss? I'm on the side of those who think people always exagerate about the atomic bomb. For example, more people died in the napalm raids in Tokyo in one night than in both atomic bombs. But it IS proven that radiation increases the chance of mutation in new born babies which in turn increases the chance of almost any kind of defect you can think of...

actually, radiation is not all bad

there is some evidence that shows that health is best at moderate levels of radiation (by moderate I actually mean very low on most scales, just not extremely low)

of course, everyone (about) agrees that high and very high levels of radiation are very bad

Jon Miller

	13-11-2004 02:47									#55
	Remove this text

physicists always seem very guilty about the atomic bomb

it was bad, I don't see what the big deal was though...

Jon Miller

	13-11-2004 02:55									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller--emphasis added I don't know about any ethical issues dealing with the atomic bomb

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller--emphasis added physicists always seem very guilty about the atomic bomb it was bad, I don't see what the big deal was though... Jon Miller

Which is it?

-Drachasor

	13-11-2004 03:02									#57
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller actually, radiation is not all bad there is some evidence that shows that health is best at moderate levels of radiation (by moderate I actually mean very low on most scales, just not extremely low) of course, everyone (about) agrees that high and very high levels of radiation are very bad Jon Miller

Yeah I sorta hinted at that, that radiation at everyday level plays a role in life.

	13-11-2004 03:07									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Lul Thyme quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller actually, radiation is not all bad there is some evidence that shows that health is best at moderate levels of radiation (by moderate I actually mean very low on most scales, just not extremely low) of course, everyone (about) agrees that high and very high levels of radiation are very bad Yeah I sorta hinted at that, that radiation at everyday level plays a role in life.

But more radiation is not helpful. We know what levels are bad, and the ones that the Atomic Bombs caused were basically wholly bad. Even moderate levels of radiation are not good for you. Only pretty low levels can be beneficial, and that is largely taken up by background radiation which is already present.

-Drachasor

	13-11-2004 03:15									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

it was bad that millions of people died

the existence of an atomic bomb is no issue to me

JM

	13-11-2004 06:38									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Yeah I sorta hinted at that, that radiation at everyday level plays a role in life.

But more radiation is not helpful. We know what levels are bad, and the ones that the Atomic Bombs caused were basically wholly bad. Even moderate levels of radiation are not good for you. Only pretty low levels can be beneficial, and that is largely taken up by background radiation which is already present.

-Drachasor [/QUOTE]

Well if you read the whole thread that is exactly what we were saying so no need to argue