“I’m not sure I see an attempt to address the fears, at least not in this statement:”
That’s because I was addressing the snippet used in the Slate article that was linked to in the original post, and which I quoted in its entirety in a previous comment.
You’re quoting an entirely different statement.
She offered Bernie the reins.
Totally would have voted that!
And what do we do to lessen the danger? Build a Faraday cage around the magnetron.
Here’s the fun part: The cage effect is known since, uh, 180 years or so but was never explored seriously - here’s a paper of someone claiming that the underlaying theory is incorrect or incomplete.
Last paragraph of the paper:
Q1. How can arguably the most famous effect in electrical engineering have remained unanalyzed for 180 years? Q2. How can a big error in the most famous physics textbook ever published have gone unreported since 1964? Q3. Somebody must design microwave oven doors based on laboratory measurements. Where are these people?
Sorry for the offtopic, I had to share this wonderful piece of that’s funny…
I’ll ignore the dig, but if you read their appendix they make a big deal out of exit poll abnormality. Part of my point was that it is entirely possible that states which choose different voting methods are different at a more fundamental level. That’s under the rather generous assumption that this isn’t a completely spurious correlation, calculation error, or misapplication of a model.
The other part, which I may not have made strong enough, is that these spurious correlations are everywhere. Add to that the cloud of paranoia surrounding both Clintons, and I feel pretty justified ignoring this until someone has some actual evidence of fraud.
I can’t give you names but back in the 1970s I taught someone whose father had been killed by shielding failure on a microwave oven. I believe it was Marconi who did a lot of the initial research - Japanese companies were still paying them for the IP years later - and they must have done the work on shielding design. As radar and comms builders, they had a lot of experience.
You know, from about mid-1941, the US and UK governments were all in for Stalin. I wonder why?
I have no problem with medical exemptions to being vaccinated. If your immune system is compromised to the point where the vaccine would be dangerous, you should be able to depend on herd immunity for protection. If you’re allergic to an ingredient in each of the vaccines available for a particular disease, you should be able to depend on herd immunity for protection.
I do have a problem with people ignoring the advice of medical professionals that have spent significant chunks of their lives studying and practicing medicine based on a now discredited study conducted by a discredited former physician who published that study without disclosing his massive conflicts of interest (having patented a vaccine that would compete with the vaccine his “study” claimed caused autism and taking money from lawyers suing that vaccine maker if I remember correctly.)
Hitler declared war on the United States, Stalin did not. Probably reason enough.
The Bundeswehr accepted in 2001 responsibility for harm done by radar emissions, some 800 ex-soldiers were compensated for radiation-related cancer (mostly caused by X-rays as by-product of high-volt high-watt vacuum tubes, not exposure to microwaves).
Sounds like Snopes is saying that while the study has received preliminary positive feedback from those knowledgeable in the field, it shouldn’t be considered totally legit until after the election.
That’s what I like to hear!
Your attitude of contempt is neither courteous nor scientific. You sound like you are more interested in revenge than persuasion.
There is the textbook definition of homeopathy (essentially dilutions to so many powers of ten we’re counting molecules per swiming pool, or even ocean), but I can go to many stores (some of them otherwise reputable pharmacies) and find herbal remedies and supplements in the “Homeopathy Department”.
Perhaps Stein is addressing the real world practice of homeopathy, where untested dubious supplements of questionable potency are being peddled next to the 1:10^30 dilutions, and people are buying them.
Karl Popper didn’t understand statistics; he was a philosopher, not a scientist.
And, at the time he was writing, a lot of scientists didn’t understand statistics.
One problem is with the word “prove”. Another is with Popper’s not really understanding how theoretical frameworks fit into models. Popper was already out of date and his views generally regarded as unrealistic when I did this stuff in the 1970s. Repeating a statement of naive Popperian falsification really doesn’t make it true in 2016.
The idea that the basic philosophical gap in induction means that no statement of the form “A does not result in B” is one of those things that is true provided we don’t actually have to survive. A farmer who decides not to use fertiliser because you can’t prove that doing so will not result in increased crop yields may have understood Popper, but she surely does not understand farming.
Yes, which is what Stein said in so many words in the complete quote excerpted in the linked Slate article.
And your statement makes it false how?
Yes, radar engineers sometimes would stand in front of the antenna in cold weather to get a bit warmer and it seems to have done little harm in most cases. Generally 5kV was accepted as a “safe” limit for exposed tubes; of course when colour TVs used 25kV CRTs, the radiation was almost all heading into the wall behind, not forwards towards the viewers.
100C is a very common homeopathic “strength” — that’s 10^200, or so many powers of ten that we’re counting molecules per universe.
You know things are bad when people are trading on the name of homeopathy to make their snake oil sound more legitimate.
Perhaps, but still, saying “be careful, these might be harmful, we should test them,” is just pandering to ignorance. She’s a medical doctor. Anything other than a blanket condemnation of homeopathy as pseudoscience should be cause for malpractice.
LCDs may be causing circadian disruption; my wife tends to suffer from this and I have set the colour temperature of her tablet and her bedside lamp quite low. A main cause of circadian disruption, however, is artificial light, and one thing that has made it possible is caffeine.
I believe that we tend to have much higher levels of artificial light in houses than we did in the pre-CFL, pre-LED days. I suspect this may have far more effect on people - though not cancerous - than the proximity of a 1 watt transmitter for an hour or so a day.
That’s an odd statement to make, considering that the first paragraph specifically notes Clinton having a similar issue on a different topic, and the part you quoted is talking about politicians in general.
Since we are talking about homeopathy, I am contractually obligated to post this:
