Government Urged to Research Cell Phone Radiation Effects
I think it's a great idea
The whole point of research is to find out something. The point of research on previously researched topics is to verify that the previous findings are true and that things haven't changed.
With the proliferation of cell phones being on your body 24/7, and the fact that nearly everyone has one nowadays, I think more research is a great idea. If it still says cell phones are perfectly safe? Even better!
With the proliferation of cell phones being on your body 24/7, and the fact that nearly everyone has one nowadays, I think more research is a great idea. If it still says cell phones are perfectly safe? Even better!
...
Agreed, however I think it's clear that industry sponsored research can not be trusted to be neutral.
...
I would suggest that the power to tax and regulate an industry disqualifies the government as a "neutral" researcher.
Find someone with no ties to the industry AND no reliance on government research grant money and let's do research.
Find someone with no ties to the industry AND no reliance on government research grant money and let's do research.
...
You're right about the government having a vested interest in the results of the study, but I put forth the idea that they're also looking for a legitimate health risk. Wireless companies are definitely tax revenue for the government, but if it can be found that they also present a huge medical liability, you can bet the government isn't going to want to foot the bill for all the medical related expenses that result from the radiation exposure.
...
You mean the same government that taxes and sues the tobacco industry while paying subsidies to tobacco farmers?
...
Most definitely. The government is a multi-faceted entity that can have its cake and eat it too, as long as it doesn't mind harming Joe Q. Taxpayer. What will matter at the end of the day is whether it is politically expedient to support one side, or both sides. Trust me, they fairly accurate results.
...
loginforthis said:
I would suggest that the power to tax and regulate an industry disqualifies the government as a "neutral" researcher.
Find someone with no ties to the industry AND no reliance on government research grant money and let's do research.
So, basically, an entity that will only exist in hypothetical models of some libertarian fantasy.
...
Webb said:loginforthis said:
I would suggest that the power to tax and regulate an industry disqualifies the government as a "neutral" researcher.
Find someone with no ties to the industry AND no reliance on government research grant money and let's do research.
So, basically, an entity that will only exist in hypothetical models of some libertarian fantasy.
Honestly. No Idea what you meant.
I'm just saying beware anyone who gets a paycheck based on their opinions. Follow the money. Use your own judgment
...
loginforthis said:Webb said:loginforthis said:
I would suggest that the power to tax and regulate an industry disqualifies the government as a "neutral" researcher.
Find someone with no ties to the industry AND no reliance on government research grant money and let's do research.
So, basically, an entity that will only exist in hypothetical models of some libertarian fantasy.
Honestly. No Idea what you meant.
I'm just saying beware anyone who gets a paycheck based on their opinions. Follow the money. Use your own judgment
I'm aware that scientists don't work for free or exist in a monetary vacuum, therefore your neutral third...
(continues)
...
PaulRivers said:
The whole point of research is to find out something. The point of research on previously researched topics is to verify that the previous findings are true and that things haven't changed.
With the proliferation of cell phones being on your body 24/7, and the fact that nearly everyone has one nowadays, I think more research is a great idea. If it still says cell phones are perfectly safe? Even better!
Interesting points.
My only concern would be who comprises the team that will investigate this. Unfortunately, many ideologues find their way on scientific research teams these days, and have a tendency to color their findings accordingly.
...
I think fellow scientists tend to expose ideology fairly quickly. It's the politicization that lingers.
I do hope that the team and procedures will be trustworthy though.
Science and research in general is getting a massively raw deal in the country currently.
On NPR the other day, one of the scientist who recently developed a beating heart in the lab (Doris Taylor I believe) commented that the Federal level of funding for scientific research was at the lowest levels of her lifetime which dates back to at least 1977.
Article in case you are interested in the heart:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/arti ... »
Here's her home page, with video discussing it.
http://www.stemcell.umn.edu/stemcell/faculty »...
(continues)
I do hope that the team and procedures will be trustworthy though.
Science and research in general is getting a massively raw deal in the country currently.
On NPR the other day, one of the scientist who recently developed a beating heart in the lab (Doris Taylor I believe) commented that the Federal level of funding for scientific research was at the lowest levels of her lifetime which dates back to at least 1977.
Article in case you are interested in the heart:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/arti ... »
Here's her home page, with video discussing it.
http://www.stemcell.umn.edu/stemcell/faculty »...
(continues)
...
You are absolutely fantasizing about scientists "exposing" each others biases.
When your colleagues share your bias, you tend to think your biased position is the "neutral" one.
Tons of garbage science gets done every year, and I'm frankly glad that less of my tax money funds it now than it did in the Carter administration.
When your colleagues share your bias, you tend to think your biased position is the "neutral" one.
Tons of garbage science gets done every year, and I'm frankly glad that less of my tax money funds it now than it did in the Carter administration.
...
loginforthis said:
You are absolutely fantasizing about scientists "exposing" each others biases.
When your colleagues share your bias, you tend to think your biased position is the "neutral" one.
Tons of garbage science gets done every year, and I'm frankly glad that less of my tax money funds it now than it did in the Carter administration.
This reeks of ideological bias.
...
loginforthis said:
We aree biased. Thats kind of my point...
I was referring to your assertions, actually.
...
I don't know what it reeks of, but I know that it upsets almost everything I believe is good and right with the world.
Science and math are the tools that society has used to better themselves and propel us into the position we are in today (if only our minds, souls, cultures don't advance as fast).
I think it's inspiring in Japan how scientists are regarded much like our celebrities.
I think it's upsetting that America's graduation rates of scientists and engineers is dwindling compared to other industrialized countries.
Science and math are the tools that society has used to better themselves and propel us into the position we are in today (if only our minds, souls, cultures don't advance as fast).
I think it's inspiring in Japan how scientists are regarded much like our celebrities.
I think it's upsetting that America's graduation rates of scientists and engineers is dwindling compared to other industrialized countries.
...
captainplooky said:
I don't know what it reeks of, but I know that it upsets almost everything I believe is good and right with the world.
Science and math are the tools that society has used to better themselves and propel us into the position we are in today (if only our minds, souls, cultures don't advance as fast).
I think it's inspiring in Japan how scientists are regarded much like our celebrities.
I think it's upsetting that America's graduation rates of scientists and engineers is dwindling compared to other industrialized countries.
Mmph. As someone who often disagrees with you... well put.
...
loginforthis said:
Tons of garbage science gets done every year, and I'm frankly glad that less of my tax money funds it now than it did in the Carter administration.
I can not understand that in the slightest.
Do you also feel that NASA and space exploration is a waste of tax funds?
...
Of course I don't think space exploration is a waste of tax funds.
I do think they could and should accomplish our exploration goals without the cost overruns and waste that they do now.
I don't know what space exploration has to o with a discussion of bias in the scientific community.
Of COURSE lots of really useful science happens every day. That doesn't mean that way too many scientists don't conclude first, research later.
I do think they could and should accomplish our exploration goals without the cost overruns and waste that they do now.
I don't know what space exploration has to o with a discussion of bias in the scientific community.
Of COURSE lots of really useful science happens every day. That doesn't mean that way too many scientists don't conclude first, research later.
...
Whew.
My NASA/space exploration question was essentially a litmus test type question.
I was trying to gauge your opposition to science because of the funding versus science in general.
My NASA/space exploration question was essentially a litmus test type question.
I was trying to gauge your opposition to science because of the funding versus science in general.
...
This forum is closed.
