There certainly are families where cancer is unknown. It's not wild speculation to think that the immune system has something to do with this and that there is a strong genetic component. I think the correlation between smoking and disease, without the strong genetic component, is clearer with emphysema.
Not immune, but it would be a first in the family (my mother did have some cancerous skin lesions removed when she was in her '80s and '90s).
No, it's a filthy (and expensive) habit. What makes it worse, as that it's highly addictive.
Actually, it is all about science. The right-wing contribution to the debate has been largely concentrated on devaluing the science. Dubbya's administration went to considerable lengths to prevent scientific opinion from being widely heard.
If you really think that it is so politically important to minimise government intervention in the economy that it right to ignore early warnings of a developing situation that could well destroy both the economy and civilisation as we know it, you are taking your ideological commitment beyond the bounds of common sense.
Not exactly. The debate about anthropogenic global warming was scientific, and it is now over. Anthropogenic global warming is real, and we need to start doing something about it now, while we still can.
The politicians are now debating what to do. The right wing doesn't want to do anything, and one of their debating tricks in support of this position is to deny that what the the science is telling them is true.
There is a well-established armoury of tricks for devaluing a scientific case. Creationists have have been using them for many years now, and the tobacco industry took them over, polished them up and spent quite a lot of money on setting up an infra-structure that could saturate the media.
Unsurprisingly, Exxon-Mobil (amongst other interested parties) took advantage of this infra-structure to launch a similar attack on the science behind anthropogenic global warming.
formatting link
It is all boringly well documented, and thoroughly plausible, in contrast to your frequent - if fatuous - claim that the IPCC has been got at.
It would appear that they entered an industry that they were "allergic" to. No more, no less.
Pysiolically unsuited for. (spelling..sorry)
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost
Cancer takes a while to develop; it is a multistage disease, and the cells involved have to accumulate all the right mutations before they can kill you.
formatting link
But since there is no way of knowing whether you are "physiologically suited to the industry" until after you've got cancer and proved that you weren't, this isn't any kind of useful observation.
And an allergy is a pretty specific problem, and you don't get cancers from being exposed to stuff to which you are allergic.
If the people who got cancer from being eposed to asbestos were allergic to the stuff, they wouldn't have lasted long enough in the business to build up the particle load needed to get a good chance of developing a cancer.
In fact, since it seems likely that everybody would get cancer if they lived long enough, it is probably better to look at exposure to asbestos as playing Russian roulette with two cartridges in the chamber (unless you have a heritable susceptility, in which case it would be three). Just being alive is playing Russian roultette with one cartridge in the chamber - something is going to kill you eventually.
Not wild, but superficial and irrelevant. Cancer is a fairly complicated disease, and it depends on the successive occurence of a sequence of mutations before it develops into a detectable and dangerous condition
formatting link
If you are born with one of these mutations already present, you are more likely to develop cancer early in life, but then your risk of cancer doesn't rise as fast with age. People with no known predisposition to cancer still get cancers
The immune system is one of the areas that could be messed up by such a mutation, but there are plenty of others
g genetic
There can be an inherited predisposition to develop emphysema
You could be the first, if you live long enough. Heart and circulatory disease kills a lot of people before they have gotten around to developing a cancer, but as the medical profession gets better at looking after our hearts and arteries, more of us survive to die of cancer.
Where would I be without my personal spelling checker? But you should note that Center is an Americanism - the word is spelled Centre in English-speaking countries.
A tolerably eccentric professional meterologist, whose work seems to be published by the Heartland Institute
formatting link
But when the study is published by the Heartland Institute, you do have to wonder how reliable it is. For someone who believes that the IPCC climatologists will fudge therir results to increase theri chances of research grants, it is a bit odd that you aren't more sceptical about a study that appears to be supported by a group that has made a business of misleading the public about the validity of scientific evidence.
Published by Viscount Christopher Monckton?
Is it used in weather stations? Or to control central heating systems?
Any you claiming specific expertise in the design an installation of the measuring systems used in weather monitoring stations, or just assuming that your expertise in a different area generalises to weather stations?
Funnily enough surfacestations,org publishes enough source data for anyone to cross check the results. If you know of a critique, valid or otherwise, of those results then link to it.
I don't know if the climeatologists fudged the results, are bad at their job or as pure as fresh snow. They resist publishing data so others can replicate their work. That stinks.
Funny how the Met Office is going to start publishing data right after climategate.
Not that I am aware.
Outdoor temperature, humidity and enthalpy monitoring.
I make no claim about the design and installation of weather stations. I design and make the electronics. However I have visited enough sites to know how that electronics is used and abused.
But you have your suspicions, as you have repeatedly let us know.
You don't like it, but it is extra work, for which they don't have a budget, and won't get any benefit from, since the people who want to see the data published aren't exactly exhibiting a constructive interest in the subject.
You can rely on the politicians to make the money available to support the extra work after the public relations disaster. Despite all the denialist protestations, there still no smoking gun in the e-mails, just occasional stuff which - when taken out of context - can be construed as suspect.
For what purpose?
Is this an insight worth publishing? Here's another - if you look at somebody else's design, it always looks stupid and irrational until you've understood it well enough to understand what the original designers though that they had to deal with.
John, The 'denialist' argument, in a nutshell is this.
First, the IPCC is composed of a 'majority' of the climatologists that survived the '90s and are still in climatology. During that time, climate scientists that disagreed wth the standard dogma of AGW were routinely 'persuaded' through the standard procedures of peer review, funding and tenure, to seek other employment. Most did.
Second, science is ALL about 'proof!' I can advance all the hysterical theories that I want, but unless I have real data and unquestionable analysis to back that theory, then I am just another voice crying in the wilderness. Just because that wilderness is the halls of congress, or the board room of the science foundations doesn't make a difference.
Third, yes, CO2 DOES contribute to warming on a global level, but its effects are dwarfed by water vapor and methane, and, like any natural process, there are limits to its effects. Just because I program my GCM to indicate that increasing CO2 will create a runaway greenhouse, doesn't mean that this will occur in reality. There are strong indications that the runaway greenhouse does not happen in reality. So, yes, the AGW supporters DO have the burden of proof. They are proclaiming the sky is failing. If I don't have an increase in meteor activity, then there is no proof.
Finally, the proof isn't there. Anytime an unbiased researcher gets to see the datasets, they can't be verified. They come from suspect sources. Our measuring stations are not that accurate, due to heat island effects, changes in location and other local conditions, as well as defects in construction and installation. Every data set is therefore subjected to questionable manipulation to 'account' for these defects. This questionalble data is then analyzed in computer models of great complexity, but dubious actual accuracy. The results of which are then considered as gospel, even when they depart significantly from observed data.
And so, after a few years of popularity, AGW will join global cooling and a lot of other 'predictions' into the realm of a failed meme.
But it hasn't been used to harrass U.K. climate researchers, and in any event it seems to post-date the e-mails that you are getting excited about. In this context, only the US legislation was relevant
In my case, when I come across a design that I don't understand, I don't attribute my ignorance as being caused by the designer's stupidity, I consider that some work has to be done in order overcome my ignorance. That is, climbing the learning curve. In your case, however, I suspect you often take only a cursory glance at someone's work and then, because you don't understand it, damn the designer as being stupid and his work as being worthless.
However, once you've been given a clue by the designer or you study it long enough to understand it and realize it has merit, you still cling to your first position and try to fabricate a scenario where it was the designer's fault that you didn't understand the work in the first place.
All of that just to keep from having to own up to an error?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.