PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[PartSkeptic]

Of course. He's much too busy being a victim and lashing out at any who venture in range Not a situation I intend to spend much more time in, to be frank.

Certainly my post was more informative and more fun to write. But ultimately not the right argument. If someone is taken ill and wishes to blame the innkeeper for the "spoiled" chicken soup that caused his illness, it's quite proper to point out that there are others eating the same soup with no apparently ill effects. A serviceable rejoinder might be that there perhaps still others, as yet unknown, who were also affected. Or that one's sensitivity to the vicissitudes of soup mold varies. Any number of logical sequiturs present themselves. But the worst rejoinder is to point to the other table of patrons eating five-alarm chili and suffering the expected effect of that. It's a non sequitur, plain and simple. And the least effective answer -- although one that may be made to contain a lot of words -- is to discuss along how many dimensions mild soup and spicy chili may be said to resemble each other or differ. That's exactly the mire that fringe claimants like to wallow in, so it's not usually worth inviting it. Cosmic Yak had it right the first time. The comparison to radiation workers simply doesn't fit. It's a non sequitur at worst and circular at best.

By your logic then, the fact that 85-90% of smokers do not get lung cancer means that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

BTW - you do understand how an analogy works? I say that NIR and IR could (and I say they do) have long term dosage effects. It appears that you are of the opinion that NIR does not have ANY effect on living tissue except for heating.

By that logic then, you say that exposure duration and intensity is not comparable regarding IR and NIR. People can have small doses of IR over a long period without harm, but you say that people can have unlimited and continuous exposure to cell phone emfs as long as it is below the recommended ICNIRP level - which is heat based.

Make allowances for my decline in linguistic skills and direct your answer to the point I am making or trying to make. Try to see past any tiny mistakes or lack of a better expression of my point. Where do you stand on the key issues of harm?

 

[Pixel42]

Feel free to leave the thread in a huff. I will understand.

I'm quite sure you won't, though everyone else will.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

1. IR has sufficient energy to break double DNA bonds.

When you put in enough IR to physically BOIL a cell, and lets generously assume that with 'double bonds' you mean the hydrogen bonding between bases, not the double bonds IN a nucleotide, as IR cannot damage those

2. NIR does not have sufficient energy to break double DNA bonds.

If you put in enough energy, so can NIR

3. Cancer caused by radiation only happens when double DNA bonds are broken.

Factually wrong, even cancer caused by ionizing radiation has various mechanisms that can lead to the damage, of which the incorrect base pairing.

4. Only IR can cause cancer.

Wrong, as cells damaged by IR are cooked and thus dead and incapable of propagating

5. NIR cannot cause cancer.

Correct, as see 4

6. Cancer is harmful, therefore NIR is not harmful.

Non sequitor

Do you know why this is false logic? In more that one place?

Yes, it's the logic you keep using, even though with every post you show to be oblivous to the fact that you lack the knowledge of both radiation and genetics to work things out.
Just because something can damage DNA does not mean it will cause cancer.
The energy needed to damage DNA by the radiation used in wifi and 5G is so high that the cells will be destroyed and non-functional long before the DNA is damaged.
This is also the case for said radiation and influencing other things in a cell.

As I've mentioned before, if your theories were right, we'd be using them in genetics as, if nothing else, they are way cheaper than using ionizing radiation to mutate DNA. But noone does. Because it does not work.
And I'm sure in your paranoid world that means that millions of people are being payed of by 'them' to keep silent.
If that's the case, can you direct me to the address I can use to get my money?

Feel free to leave the thread in a huff. I will understand.

 

[JayUtah]

I have already admitted that I am in the initial stages of Alzheimers...

Sorry to hear that, but it's no excuse for abusing people in court and on the web. Get help from people who can help you. Don't antagonize people who have nothing to do with your woes.

It is an attempt to avoid dealing with the logic. Dealing with the logic would expose your level of competence.

Addressing my actual argument would have required you to demonstrate at least as much competence as I. Instead you insist that I validate your ham-fisted attempt to cram a different argument in my mouth. You're patently incapable of dealing with an argument other than the ones you're trying to foist.

Your experience is clearly out of date...

Bluster.

Forget the rest of the post and respond to this part...

Why would you think the same straw man would work again? That may be the "logic" you fervently want me to adopt because it's what you feel is weak enough for you to attack. You obviously can't address any of the actual arguments people are making.

My main purpose in joining this thread was to persuade you that trying to take people to court on the flimsy basis you've expressed here is playing with fire. If you want to pretend to be a health physicist on the web and tangle in low-consequence debates, that's not the worst way you could spend your time. When you actually start forcing people to expend resources to correct you, they may not have a lot of forbearance to do it. Be careful.

 

[JayUtah]

By your logic then, the fact that 85-90% of smokers do not get lung cancer means that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

Not an argument I'm making.

It appears that you are of the opinion that NIR does not have ANY effect on living tissue except for heating.

Not an argument I'm making.

By that logic then, you say that exposure duration and intensity is not comparable regarding IR and NIR.

I've explained at length the comparability of the different specific circumstances of radiation exposure that you identified as being equivalent. You chose not to address that explanation. The statement you're trying to attribute to me appears nowhere in it.

...but you say that people can have unlimited and continuous exposure to cell phone emfs as long as it is below the recommended ICNIRP level - which is heat based.

Oh, is that what I say? Be so kind as to link to the post where I said it.

Make allowances for my decline in linguistic skills...

No, I don't think I will. I don't believe your tactics in this thread have much to do with "linguistic decline." You failed to browbeat me. You failed to straw-man me. So now you're trying to currying sympathy and poison the well. It didn't work for Jabba, and it won't work for you.

...and direct your answer to the point I am making or trying to make.

I have addressed your point regarding the supposed equivalence of exposure to cell phone electromagnetic field energy and exposure to things like nuclear fission. You elected not to pay the slightest attention to it, to dismiss it as alleged nonsense, and to call my occupational knowledge and experience into question. Then you had the temerity to ask for quarter.

Your exercise now consists of increasingly detached aspirations to script my half of a fantasy debate that crowns you a learned hero, to put into my mouth arguments you may have heard from others, and to insist that I follow the talking points mandated by advocates who don't seem to understand either the politics or the science. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no intention following your roadmap. I will argue as I see fit, and if you can respond only with bluff, bluster, and poor-me, then that will have to be the way of things.

 

[bknight]

By your logic then, the fact that 85-90% of smokers do not get lung cancer means that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

BTW - you do understand how an analogy works? I say that NIR and IR could (and I say they do) have long term dosage effects. It appears that you are of the opinion that NIR does not have ANY effect on living tissue except for heating.

By that logic then, you say that exposure duration and intensity is not comparable regarding IR and NIR. People can have small doses of IR over a long period without harm, but you say that people can have unlimited and continuous exposure to cell phone emfs as long as it is below the recommended ICNIRP level - which is heat based.

Make allowances for my decline in linguistic skills and direct your answer to the point I am making or trying to make. Try to see past any tiny mistakes or lack of a better expression of my point. Where do you stand on the key issues of harm?

You need to be very accurate and correct in your statements when debating with Jay, as long as I have "known" him I find his candor in matters he addresses are very good and he makes very few mistakes.

 

[gmanontario]

Well I can see this ending by suicide by mod or a very angry post then a flounce.

I've seen JayUtah own up to mistakes and incorrect information by correcting himself without malice. We need more of that here.

 

[p0lka]

Have they done the test they agreed to do yet?

 

[JayUtah]

I've seen JayUtah own up to mistakes and incorrect information by correcting himself without malice.

For example, ending up with nucleotide when my fingers were typing nuclide. This is what you get when you don't pay attention to MacOS autocorrect in an uncaffeinated state.

 

[gmanontario]

For example, ending up with nucleotide when my fingers were typing nuclide. This is what you get when you don't pay attention to MacOS autocorrect in an uncaffeinated state.

I turned off autocorrect so it only suggests now. Too many awkward moments.

Seriously, you actually let yourself get uncaffeinated? My opinion just got a tiny bit lower.

 

[JayUtah]

Good suggestion. I should do that too. The Macbook didn't used to be my primary computer. I agree it's a little too "helpful" at times.

To be fair, I usually post to ISF over morning coffee. So it's a pre-caffeinated state. Sometimes it doesn't really get into the bloodstream before I have to put away the pastimes and go to work.

 

[gmanontario]

When I was in IT at a nuclear plant we were two dosimeters one for radiation and the other for caffeine since some day pre 2000 we worked 16+ hours days.
I think I went half a shift without blinking..

 

[EvilBiker]

Well I can see this ending by suicide by mod or a very angry post then a flounce.

Hm, I think Jay broke him...

 

[JayUtah]

When I was in IT at a nuclear plant we were two dosimeters one for radiation and the other for caffeine since some day pre 2000 we worked 16+ hours days.
I think I went half a shift without blinking..

Marginally relevant question: You were in IT at a commercial plant. Did they allow ordinary computer wifi? This isn't a health question; it's a security question. At one point I recall that computer wifi of the 8-0-something-then-some-letters variety were disallowed on security grounds.

Totally irrelevant banter: I'm at the age now where blood pressure is a health concern. So I have to restrict my caffeine intake. Yes, back in the day I remember living on little else but coffee, and working 37 hours a day. I swear you needed a mood ring in addition to the dosimeter. Caffeine tends to defocus me too. My colleagues who are similarly situated now both use and recommend more appropriately tailored drugs like Vyvanse and Adderall, although coffee is cheaper and doesn't require a prescription.

 

[gmanontario]

Marginally relevant question: You were in IT at a commercial plant. Did they allow ordinary computer wifi? This isn't a health question; it's a security question. At one point I recall that computer wifi of the 8-0-something-then-some-letters variety were disallowed on security grounds.

Totally irrelevant banter: I'm at the age now where blood pressure is a health concern. So I have to restrict my caffeine intake. Yes, back in the day I remember living on little else but coffee, and working 37 hours a day. I swear you needed a mood ring in addition to the dosimeter. Caffeine tends to defocus me too. My colleagues who are similarly situated now both use and recommend more appropriately tailored drugs like Vyvanse and Adderall, although coffee is cheaper and doesn't require a prescription.

First: no wifi at all except for company issued devices. Back then cell phones that could access a network were not very common. No wifi was allowed under the dome or in the control room. Personal cell phones were not allowed in there either. There were phone lockers outside where you could go to check and use them. I had one wireless device, a sort of pager where you could text if the problem could be solved that way.
What wifi they allowed used a mac address and a password to connect. I had 4 passwords to remember for all my equipment that were changed every month. Otherwise, all equipment that I could use was hardwired to the network. This was 1998 to 2001 so it's probably changed now. I left August 2001 so I missed all those security measures and I still have to explain to people crashing planes into the dome will only leave a very dark smear. Mr Clean and a mop will clean it all off. The domes are 4 feet triple reinforced single pour concrete. Only a bunker buster can hurt it.
Second: I've slowed down my consumption because of high blood pressure. It's tough since I retired but I'm managing to keep it down. Decaffeinated is the work of the devil so i refuse to touch it.
Lastly, i didn't touch the control monitoring software or the communication software. I was mainly network and business systems like scheduling, capital projects accounting, HR and internal email. Plus as the junior, I was the printer troubleshooter, the worst job in the world. Working at Ontario Hydro made me hate users forever and scorn them whenever scorn was required.

 

[Hans]

Totally irrelevant banter: I'm at the age now where blood pressure is a health concern. So I have to restrict my caffeine intake. Yes, back in the day I remember living on little else but coffee, and working 37 hours a day. I swear you needed a mood ring in addition to the dosimeter. Caffeine tends to defocus me too. My colleagues who are similarly situated now both use and recommend more appropriately tailored drugs like Vyvanse and Adderall, although coffee is cheaper and doesn't require a prescription.

When I was in the Army coffee was the main drug to keep men moving for long periods of time. However, one time, at the National Training Center (1985) we had a logistical breakdown and had to restrict water use for a few days. No coffee. Several senior NCO's and officers broken down due to this caffeine lack and few had to be evacuated. I remember several of these senior leader were so embarrassed by this 'weakness' that they gave up coffee - the majority didn't. It knocked out so many top people that I, a junior Captai,n ended up commanding the Battalion for a while. I don't drink coffee - cannot stand the taste - my thing is Mexican coke with real sugar and all the caffeine one might need

 

[gmanontario]

When I was in the Army coffee was the main drug to keep men moving for long periods of time. However, one time, at the National Training Center (1985) we had a logistical breakdown and had to restrict water use for a few days. No coffee. Several senior NCO's and officers broken down due to this caffeine lack and few had to be evacuated. I remember several of these senior leader were so embarrassed by this 'weakness' that they gave up coffee - the majority didn't. It knocked out so many top people that I, a junior Captai,n ended up commanding the Battalion for a while. I don't drink coffee - cannot stand the taste - my thing is Mexican coke with real sugar and all the caffeine one might need

At one point I drank Jolt Cola rather than coffee, but they stopped making it available here.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I am quite aware of remission. The timing of the return was suspicious. Not definitive but not a good sign.

Fail.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I have already admitted that I am in the initial stages of Alzheimers, and that both my spelling and grammar have declined dramatically.

Sorry to hear that. My father and grandfather both had it. I am hoping I didn't inherit their genes. Any time I forget how to spell a word or can't remember something it scares me.

They say that exercising your brain helps to slow the decline. So now is a good time to think more rationally!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

By your logic then, the fact that 85-90% of smokers do not get lung cancer means that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

More fail. Many smokers don't die of lung cancer because another known effect of smoking kills them first.

Smoking Fast Facts

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death.

For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.

Equating smoking with EMF is silly. One causes obvious harm through mechanisms that agree with science, the other does not. One has statistics backing this up, the other does not. Only ignorant lay people suffering from severe confirmation bias believe that low level EMF has any health effects, and they have no evidence to support their delusions.