Re: This is impossible
Phil Fraering
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:43:29 -0600
> Sorry Eric, check your history(besides European history). The chinese
> were more advanced in science and medicine as well as commmon sense and
> hygiene than the europeans until around the industrial revolution. And
> this was because the chinese rulers in their arrogance closed off
> contact with the western world under the assumption they had nothing to
> learn from them.
In some ways they were more advanced, and in some ways less; also,
Europeans of what time period? Things like personal hygiene went
up and down depending on a lot of various factors (people in Poland
bathed a lot, before their culture got decimated by Mongol invasions;
bathing in Europe went down a fair bit when the public baths were closed
after the Plague.)
I know there was one Icelandic author (one of the Snorris, I think)
who wrote his works while soaking in his first hot tub.
And I'm sorry, but I just have to repeat it. I think James Burke
came up with it...
"Snorri's tub was one of the world's first known think tanks..."
The problems of the Chinese civilization wasn't quite that they
failed to copy the industrial revolution; they developed a great
deal of the technologies the industrial revolution depended upon.
They just never bothered to exploit them because they got trapped
into a conception of a two-estate society of peasants and scholarly
bureaucrats, and often a technology that wasn't useful to either
class was allowed to lay fallow and rot. Look at what happened
to their shipbuilding, for instance.
Phil
$2500 to explain LNT model failure
J Hughes
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:08:19 -0800
------------7C64558D6A1B0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Forwarded from Bernard Cohen:
In the February 1995 issue of HEALTH PHYSICS (vol.69, pp157-174), I
published a paper entitled Test of the Linear - No Threshold (LNT)
Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis..... in which I reported that lung
cancer mortality rates for U.S. Counties, with or without correction
for smoking prevalence, decreases rapidly (about -8% per pCi/L) as
average radon exposure increases. This represents a very large
discrepancy (20 standard deviations!!) with the prediction of LNT
theory that lung cancer rates should increase rapidly (about +7% per
pCi/L) with increasing average radon exposure . My problem is in
understanding this discrepancy.
I have examined the effects of over 60 confounding factors, and have
done many other tests, but this work has done little to explain our
discrepancy. I have gone through the literature on Recological studies
and can easily show how the results of any other published ecological
study can be erroneous, but I cannot figure out how one can avoid
concluding from our data that LNT theory fails in this low dose region
where it has never been tested.
What I need very badly is suggestions for not implausible specific
potential explanations for our discrepancy, in at least
semi-quantitative numerical terms, on which I can carry out
calculations to determine if they can resolve it, or can be modified
to resolve it. As a possible example, one might suggest that urban
people smoke more frequently and for unrelated reasons have lower radon
exposures than rural people, both of which are true. What I need is data
for each of our 1601 counties on which to do calculations to see if
they resolve our discrepancy. You can make-up the data, as long as you
consider them to be not implausible. Since I need these made-up data
for each of the 1601 counties, it might be most practical to give me a
prescription for deriving these data. For example you might say that
the radon exposure for a rural person is x% higher than for an urban
person and an urban person is y% more likely to smoke than a rural
person. Since I know the average radon level in each county, the
fraction of people in each county who are urban and rural and the
fraction that smoke, I can then determine the predicted lung cancer
rate in each county from BEIR-IV for various values of x and y, and
make comparisons with the data. The only problem with this example is
that I reported calculations based on it in Section L of my paper and
it did very little to reduce our discrepancy. But you might not agree
on how I did the calculation and suggest an alternative method, or you
can suggest some alternative prescription for making up the data,
perhaps utilizing random numbers or anything else you can think of
that will allow me to do calculations. Or you can just present me with
tables of numbers that you consider to be not implausible.
I offer a $2500 award to anyone who submits a suggestion that, after a
detailed evaluation, leads to a not-implausible explanation of our
discrepancy. I can give up to three such awards. If the submitter and
I do not agree on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the public
judgement of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested by the
submitter (let's define prominent as 10 papers in HEALTH PHYSICS or
equivalent journals over the past 10 years). I would hope to publish a
paper on this with the submitter and judge as coauthors, but in any
case, the $2500 award will be paid promptly. Of course the urban-rural
effect discussed above was meant only as an example; any other ideas
would be equally acceptable.
Alternative suggestions for implementing my offer would be most
welcome. I really need help on this problem. If anyone would like a
copy of our data file, I would be happy to provide it.
Bernard L. Cohen Physics Dept. University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh,
PA 15260 Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163 e-mail:
blc+@pitt.edu
------------7C64558D6A1B0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Forwarded from Bernard Cohen:
In the February 1995 issue of HEALTH PHYSICS (vol.69, pp157-174),
I published a paper entitled Test of the Linear - No Threshold (LNT)
Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis..... in which I reported that
lung cancer mortality rates for U.S. Counties, with or without
correction for smoking prevalence, decreases rapidly (about -8% per
pCi/L) as average radon exposure increases. This represents a very
large discrepancy (20 standard deviations!!) with the prediction of
LNT theory that lung cancer rates should increase rapidly (about +7% per
pCi/L) with increasing average radon exposure . My problem is in
understanding this discrepancy.
I have examined the effects of over 60 confounding factors, and
have done many other tests, but this work has done little to explain our
discrepancy. I have gone through the literature on Recological
studies and can easily show how the results of any other published
ecological study can be erroneous, but I cannot figure out how one can
avoid concluding from our data that LNT theory fails in this low dose
region where it has never been tested.
What I need very badly is suggestions for not implausible specific
potential explanations for our discrepancy, in at least semi-quantitative
numerical terms, on which I can carry out calculations to determine
if they can resolve it, or can be modified to resolve it. As
a possible example, one might suggest that urban people smoke more frequently
and for unrelated reasons have lower radon exposures than rural people,
both of which are true. What I need is data for each of our 1601 counties
on which to do calculations to see if they resolve our discrepancy.
You can make-up the data, as long as you consider them to be
not implausible. Since I need these made-up data for each of
the 1601 counties, it might be most practical to give me a
prescription for deriving these data. For example you might say
that the radon exposure for a rural person is x% higher than for an
urban person and an urban person is y% more likely to smoke than a
rural person. Since I know the average radon level in each county, the
fraction of people in each county who are urban and rural and the
fraction that smoke, I can then determine the predicted lung cancer
rate in each county from BEIR-IV for various values of x and y, and
make comparisons with the data. The only problem with
this example is that I reported calculations based on it in Section
L of my paper and it did very little to reduce our discrepancy.
But you might not agree on how I did the calculation and suggest
an alternative method, or you can suggest some alternative prescription
for making up the data, perhaps utilizing random numbers or
anything else you can think of that will allow me to do calculations.
Or you can just present me with tables of numbers that you
consider to be not implausible.
I offer a $2500 award to anyone who submits a suggestion that,
after a detailed evaluation, leads to a not-implausible explanation of
our discrepancy. I can give up to three such awards. If the submitter
and I do not agree on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the
public judgement of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested
by the submitter (let's define prominent as 10 papers in HEALTH
PHYSICS or equivalent journals over the past 10 years). I would hope
to publish a paper on this with the submitter and judge as coauthors,
but in any case, the $2500 award will be paid promptly. Of course
the urban-rural effect discussed above was meant only as an
example; any other ideas would be equally acceptable.
Alternative suggestions for implementing my offer would
be most welcome. I really need help on this problem. If anyone would
like a copy of our data file, I would be happy to provide it.
Bernard L. Cohen Physics Dept. University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
------------7C64558D6A1B0--
Re: This is impossible
Erik Max Francis
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:37:30 -0800
Eric Flesch wrote:
> We are talking about hypothetical civilizations which are BILLIONS of
> years older & more advanced than us. Once the technology for
> near-light travel (or hibernation a la RAMA) is in place, such a
> civilization could spread throughout the galaxy like yeast in a petrie
> dish. Each new outpost would colonize its environs, etc. A galaxy
> like ours would be filled up in a few million years with near-light
> travel, in a few hundred million years with the hibernation approach.
We're all fully aware of the Fermi paradox, Eric. It indicates that one or
more of our assumptions is wrong. The question is now to find out which
one it is -- and you don't know the answer anymore than the rest of us.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE; / email: max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems / web: http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States / icbm: 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
\
"Gods are born and die, / but the atom endures."
/ (Alexander Chase)
Re: On Hardin: an interview and commentary -- Ecology, Economy, and Ethics
herbsmac@his.com (Maurice Schwartz)
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:41:49 -0500
In article ,
umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca (Roy C. Dudgeon) wrote:
SNIP
> The problem with Hardin is that he seems to assume that such an
> attitude is equivalent with human nature, which it is not.
> Such a view is quite common in our own culture, however, and
> particularly among capitalists. In fact, such a "me first and to hell
> with everyone else and the environment" philosophy underlies economic
> planning throughout the majority of the world at present.
> Thus, while Hardin identified the logic which has lead to our current
> ecological dillemas, he never informed his readers that the "tragedy of
> the commons" was anything but an inevitability, but was the result of the
> economic ethics--themselves far from universal--which our own Western
> culture has chosen to adopt.
The Tragedy of the Commons has extended way beyond our own Western culture
as amply set forth by George Perkins Marsh in his 1865 book, Man and
Nature. Many very old and very non Western cultures were trapped in the
tragedy of the commons.
Characteristics of our culture have exacerbated the degradation of the
natural environment, it is true, but characteristics of quite different
cultures have exacerbated the degradation of their natural environments.
Remember that slash and burn agriculture and overgrazing have plagued a
number of cultures beginning in early antiquity.
Re: This is impossible
jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
26 Jan 1997 03:53:38 GMT
In <32EA8701.3AC4@maf.mobile.al.us> Wight
writes:
>
>Eric Flesch wrote:
>> Entirely untrue, as half of the Earth was already known. The best
>> that the Europeans could have said was that the other half of the
>> world was not more advanced than they were -- which was true, of
>> course.
>
>Sorry Eric, check your history(besides European history). The chinese
>were more advanced in science and medicine as well as commmon sense
> and
>hygiene than the europeans until around the industrial revolution.
This seems to miss Eric's point, since China was in the known
half of the globe....
But it is also untrue, especially wrt science ("common
sense" is rather unmeasurable...).
The work of Galileo, Descartes, Harvey, Newton, Leibnitz, Huygens,
Leewenhoek, Halley, Hook, Torricelli, Pascal, Fermat etc. etc.
long precedes the industrial revolution.
By *their* standards, China hardly had science at all.
>this was because the chinese rulers in their arrogance closed off
>contact with the western world under the assumption they had nothing
to
>learn from them.
An evidence of their superior "common sense"?
>Think about Europeans din't take baths back then, they thought it
>would make them sick.
Western Europeans, yes. The Chinese had their
own harmful customs - like mutilating girls' feet.
The Western Europeans had bathed till the Black
Death of mid-14th century, then stopped; and resumed
bathing gradually, beginning in late 16th century.
By *this* standard, Western Europeans of the Renaissance
were less "advanced" than many naked stone-age savages,
let alone the Chinese.
Why not? Just define your terms,
and we may all agree. My definition of "advanced"
is implicit in a previous article,
which I'll quote, slightly edited:
jw] In mechanics and optics Europe had overtaken China
jw] by about 1300 (even though China, too, had
jw] been progressing fast till then).
jw] *Then* Chinese technology stagnated - but
jw] Europe's continued forging ahead.
jw] The result is obvious.
jw] But there is something less obvious but
jw] even more fundamental.
jw] In *energetics* Western Europe had been already
jw] further ahead in the XI - yes - eleventh century,
jw] than China was to be even in the 18th and 19th century!
jw] Even by that late date, almost *all* power used in China
jw] still was the power of *human muscles*. Even horses
jw] and mules were very rare, weak and badly harnessed
jw] (see Fernand Braudel, _Civilization and Capitalism_,
jw] Harper and Row, 1985, Vol I, pp. 346-347)
jw] But in the 11th century Europe, *most* of the power
jw] used was already nonhuman - mostly animal power
jw] and water power, but other sources as well.
jw] In this essential, it was already ahead of
jw] 18th-19th century China.
jw] To quote another book by Fernand Braudel:
jw] || "For human power [in China] could be used for
jw] || everything. In 1793, a British traveler marvelled
jw] || at the sight of a ship being transferred from
jw] || one level of water to another without going through
jw] || a dock, but simply being lifted by
jw] || human strength. Father de la Cortes
jw] || in 1626 had already admired - and drawn -
jw] || Chinese porters in the act of lifting
jw] || an enormous tree-trunk. No task, in
jw] || other words, was too heavy for human
jw] || beings. And in China they came so cheap".
jw] || (Fernand Braudel, _A History of Civilizations_,
jw] || Penguin Books, 1995, pp. 197-198)
jw] To repeat,
jw] "And in China they [human beings] came so cheap"...
jw] This may be the *root* of the matter:
jw] the *liberation of man* through the
jw] *enslavement of nature* that occurred
jw] in Europe first - starting in early Middle Ages.
jw] This was the *turning point* of human history.
jw] || "As Lynn White has remarked, medieval Europe
jw] || was perhaps the first society to build
jw] || an economy on nonhuman power rather
jw] || than on the backs of slaves and coolies".
jw] || (Joel Mokyr, _The Lever of Riches. Technological
jw] || Creativity and Economic Progress_, Oxford
jw] || University Press, 1990, p. 35).
jw] (This refers to Lynn White, author
jw] of _Medieval Technology and Social Change_,
jw] Oxford University Press, 1990)
jw] Wielding this additional power, medieval Europeans
jw] were already, in a sense, giants relative to
jw] the rest of the civilized world's populations -
jw] and they kept growing in stature.
jw] By the 16th century this had been translated into a
jw] striking imbalance of military power between
jw] the little Europe and the great world -
jw] as the whole history of the world attests.
Re: Whaling Action Alert: Urge Clinton to Sanction Canada for Pirate Whaling
Thom Swan & Shiloh Lightfoot
26 Jan 1997 06:15:05 GMT
Howdy, neighbors:
I think you missed my point. If President Clinton is gong to seek
sanctions against Canada for allowing Natives to hunt whales, logic and
international law, not to mention a bit of human courtesy, requires he
have some reasonable, or at least reasoned, grounds for doing so.
Nothing in the original post give anyone reason to believe that;
A. Canadian Natives were hunting bowhead whales illegally. This was
merely implied by the inflammatory language of the posting, which
described such hunts as "piracy." The word piracy implies an illegal
act on the high seas, such as crewpersons from the gay ship Rainbow
Warrier cutting other people's fishing nets on the high seas.
B. The original post gives no reason to believe that harvest of bowhead
whales may significantly retard recovery of the species or impact the
long term population levels of the specie.
C. The original post gives no reason why Canadian Natives should be
singled out, versus all indiginous people's who's right to hunt
marine mammals is protected by international treaties.
If someone wishes to persuade me to take some sort of action (i.e.
writing a letter to a man I despise asking him to take some sort of
action), they are going to have to convince me to do so. Touching my
heart strings ain't gonna cut it!!!
Thom
