quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
Sorry TS, next time I want to make funny I'll do something like this
[joke]
__________________________________________________
A funny thing happened to me on the way to
the forum tonight...............
__________________________________________________
[/joke]

then you know not to look it up in Wikiland

BTW I think whom ever wrote that wiki was using "programming language" in its loosest possible meaning

I suppose you could change "a list" for "an essay"(bit of program snobbery lol)

Well, you could actually tell us something funny. That would be a joke.

It appears that you have a somewhat limited knowledge of computer languages. I've used a few over the years and my only objection is to any that encourage spaghetti code instead of a proper structure or that are just plain hard to read!

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

Just to clear the point up, it was government and its scientific advisors that gave us BSE in the first place, is this you thanking them for saving us from it?

Just to really clear the point up, it was the animal feed industry that gave us BSE.

Yes, even New Scientist beleives their is adequate evidence of passive smoking - but also that anti-smoking camapigners are using unsupported 'noble lies' to aid their cause.

From the New Scientist Editorial: Don't mangle the facts, even in a good cause
10 November 2007

Magazine issue 2629

quote:

SMOKING is a major cause of premature death and it isn't hard to justify taking strong measures to discourage it, especially now that the dangers of passive smoking are well known. So most health officials fully support moves in California and elsewhere to ban smoking in shared housing and public places such as bus stops and ATMs. In one city it is even illegal to smoke in the street.

A good thing? Perhaps - except that it looks as if anti-smoking campaigners have been distorting the facts to make their case. Some have claimed that a non-smoker exposed to tobacco smoke for just half an hour can permanently increase their risk of heart attack. Yet a new study suggests that such statements are not supported by science. Half an hour of passive smoking causes only transitory changes in heart function.

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:

quote:

Some have claimed that a non-smoker exposed to tobacco smoke for just half an hour can permanently increase their risk of heart attack. Yet a new study suggests that such statements are not supported by science. Half an hour of passive smoking causes only transitory changes in heart function.

That's interesting about passive smoking, and banning smoking in pubs is not something I've ever argued for (I'm a smoker and haven't been in Britain since the ban came in, but have mostly been in coutries where smoking is allowed pretty much everywhere) since I would say people make a choice as to whether or not to go into a pub which allows smoking, and no one ought to be forced to work somewhere they don't want to work.

But with the atmosphere there is no such choice. If wealthy countries like Britain pump vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, it's not just our atmosphere we're putting that CO2 into, it is the atmosphere of the whole planet, and the irony is that those countries most at risk from the effects of climate change are the ones least responsible for causing it.

quote:

Just to really clear the point up, it was the animal feed industry that gave us BSE.

Just to really really clear the point up the animal feed industry's job is to feed the animals at a profit, the governments job is to protect the food chain(thus us and the animals) by handing out licenses after taking advice from its scientific advisor's(whom must have been particularly dim to not know that cows are vegetarians) so as you can see there is plenty of blame to go round and you should go and sit in pedants corner for a while

So, more correctly, we should refer to BSE as ABSE (anthropogenic BSE)...

mufcdiver

quote:

whom must have been particularly dim to not know that cows are vegetarians

What's that to do with it? Human's aren't vegetarians yet are susceptible to NVCJD.

It's the priciple of canabalism...

Feed cows to cows, they get BSE...

Feed humans to humans, they get Kuru...

OK, they have to be infected in the first place, but the whole thing is deemed unnatural.

(oh no - I can feel this getting around to religion again...)

Maybe you should ask a Vulcan what they think...

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

Just to really clear the point up, it was the animal feed industry that gave us BSE.

Just to really really clear the point up the animal feed industry's job is to feed the animals at a profit, the governments job is to protect the food chain(thus us and the animals) by handing out licenses after taking advice from its scientific advisor's(whom must have been particularly dim to not know that cows are vegetarians) so as you can see there is plenty of blame to go round and you should go and sit in pedants corner for a while

Your message implied that the whole thing was caused by the govt. What really happened is that they allowed it to happen due to inadequate knowledge at the time, which is hardly the same thing. Using your defintion, the govt "has caused" lung cancer by allowing people to smoke and obesity by allowing them to eat too much. In fact, we can say that "profit" has caused all of these. You should sit in the misrepresentation corner for a while.

Chris Booker explains in his latest column from the Telegraph on Sunday why he wrote the book and how it evolved over the years noticing the scare stories exagarrated by politicians and the media.



Christopher Booker's Notebook

TS
So are we saying that by employing(or only listening to)stupid scientist the government has a get out jail free card on this issue? I was wondering how David King came to get his job

BTW TS
Cigarettes and cancer have been linked for over 150 years now, if the government holds no responsibility, whats the point in licensing a product in the first place, or is a front to justify their own existence
FTS

M Batchelor

quote:

We got many inside stories from informed readers of this newspaper: from the bizarre manipulations of science which underlay the demonising of lead in petrol and of white asbestos (which together cost the Western economies hundreds of billions of pounds) to the hysteria over "Satanic child abuse" which 20 years ago possessed so many of our social workers.

So are Booker and North saying that Lead in petrol was not damaging to children? That white asbestos does not cause lung cancer? That the Satanic Child abuse hysteria was government not press doing following police investigations and that it was on a comparable scale to White asbestos and Lead in petrol?

And thay talk about costing western economies hundreds of billions of pounds. Let's say a trillion pounds over 20 years for a population of say 500 million. That's £100 per person per year £2 per week. To remove forever these health hazards. Good I say.
Book promoting hype and press over sensationalising as usual.

I still shall not be buying the book.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
BTW TS
Cigarettes and cancer have been linked for over 150 years now, if the government holds no responsibility, whats the point in licensing a product in the first place, or is a front to justify their own existence
FTS

You appear to have a strangely reversed view of things.

It's OK for anyone to make profits (huge in some cases, like tobacco) by selling things that are harmful? It's not OK for the govt to not do anything about it, although there might be no evidence for a long time (the smoking-lung cancer link was not firmly established until the 1950s and there was no hint of a problem with cattle feed for some time*) and in any case there would be outrage about freedom, the "nanny state", etc.?

BTW where did your "150 years" come from?

*If I was in a position to do anything about it, I would've prevented the feeding of processed animal remains to cattle as a matter of principle without waiting for any problems, but I would not have been able to support that action with evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:

So are Booker and North saying that Lead in petrol was not damaging to children? That white asbestos does not cause lung cancer? That the Satanic Child abuse hysteria was government not press doing following police investigations and that it was on a comparable scale to White asbestos and Lead in petrol?

And thay talk about costing western economies hundreds of billions of pounds. Let's say a trillion pounds over 20 years for a population of say 500 million. That's £100 per person per year £2 per week. To remove forever these health hazards. Good I say.
Book promoting hype and press over sensationalising as usual.

I still shall not be buying the book.

Booker is following form. I can't say much more without being libellous.

quote:

BTW where did your "150 years" come from?

Coffin nails(I was aware that the term had been around for awhile so i googled it and found a site named after it)
tobacco products have been linked to cancer from as early as 1761 by a Dr John Hill from London.

I wasn't saying profits are ok or not, simply that that is the nature of the [business] beast.In a later post I stated that there was plenty of blame to go round

I totally agree with your last statement and like to say that I would have been a naysayer too

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

BTW where did your "150 years" come from?

Coffin nails(I was aware that the term had been around for awhile so i googled it and found a site named after it)
tobacco products have been linked to cancer from as early as 1761 by a Dr John Hill from London.

Thanks. I had no idea it went back that far. All the same, it wasn't until the 1950s (Richard Doll IIRC) that it was proven sufficiently to convince govts.

quote:

I wasn't saying profits are ok or not, simply that that is the nature of the [business] beast.In a later post I stated that there was plenty of blame to go round

That's a good point but who is worse: the person who does something bad or the other person who stands by and lets it happen? And businesses aren't just impersonal machines; they are run by people.

quote:

I totally agree with your last statement and like to say that I would have been a naysayer too

It just seems obviously wrong, doesn't it? I wonder what testing was involved?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
It seems to come down to whether you are willing to lose a few of your so-called liberties for the sake of a more secure future. If these liberties (or luxuries) have been hard won, then I suppose people are less willing to give them up, even if the future consequences are that we are likely to lose a lot more.

Close. It comes down to whether I am prepared to lose my liberties in the external world for the sake of your internal insecurities. I suppose your viewing other people's liberty as a 'luxury' is the result of your being so insecure.

quote:

You complain about a small amount of nannying now, but if the world did decend into catastrophy, we'd probably lose the vast majority of the liberties we have gained during the past century or so - and not just the right to drink and smoke and pollute.

Your fear, of course, is that to give up your felt-need to be nannied is the same as to "descend into catastrophe". Seeing many other people who DO get on with life without suffering from any felt-need to be nannied only amplifies your fear for your own survival... and your envy of people at liberty. Which is why you want to control them and force them to have the same chronic dependencies as you do. And why you look here for like-minded accomplices in your project.

Who, really, is being selfish?

Oooo - and you think you would retain your liberties/luxuries in the anarchic society (ie, free from laws) you desire? Um... don't think so!

I'm not trying to change your opinion - you are quite entitled to it - I'm just interested to know why you hold it.

You, on the other hand, seem quite bent on trying to "cure" me of mine with your psychobabble.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Oooo - and you think you would retain your liberties/luxuries in the anarchic society (ie, free from laws) you desire? Um... don't think so!

You seem a little confused. In your last post you asked me if I was "willing to lose a few of my so-called liberties for the sake of a more secure future". I responded by wondering WHOSE future you felt you needed to secure at the price of my "so-called liberties". I already feel very secure, so I can only conclude that it is you who is insecure.

I'm also aware that you keep leaping from one "catastrophe" to the next as the cause of you insecurity. The repeated pattern is 'If only we can get rid of BSE/CJD/WMD/SARS/Cigarettes/Drinking/Pollution/Climate Change etc etc (delete as appropriate) I will FINALLY feel secure'. Of course, you won't - you'll immediately pick up on the next scare story and externalise your insecurities all over again.

Clearly for you, retaining liberty IS anarchic - because the world already has liberty and it appears to trouble you so much.

quote:

I'm not trying to change your opinion... You, on the other hand, seem quite bent on trying to "cure" me of mine with your psychobabble.

As I have said - I don't care about your insecurity (it's your problem, not mine). But when you call my liberty a 'luxury' and claim to want me to lose it... then I will point out this can only be the view of a person who feels very insecure in the world.

OK - then tell me why you feel so secure?

I would be interested in Mr Batchelor's thoughts after the conclusion of the Valencia conference in November. There are no independent scientists who do not see CO2 emissions as a VERY BIG problem. Denial is not going to achieve anything. anyone interested should get informed.