Forbidden Science
Forum rules
Civil discussion appreciated. No Spam...
Civil discussion appreciated. No Spam...
Forbidden Science
I read a couple of years ago a fascinating book Forbidden Science and I it does appear to be a huge topic
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
There has always been forbidden sciences, or taboo.
Unless dangerous it should be known, or available to learn from. Medicine is the biggest hidden science it seems, and natural cures.
Unless dangerous it should be known, or available to learn from. Medicine is the biggest hidden science it seems, and natural cures.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
Refuting Evolution
I have just finished a fascinating book Refuting Evolution by Jonathon Sarfati PHD. Though it is an easy 138 page read it is page after page full of evidence that now makes it appear to me that evolution is a very elaberate deliberate deception.
Here is just a bit from that 138 pages.
1 The moon gets farther each year from the earth by about one and a half inches. So if the moon left the earth a billion and a half years ago it would be where it is now. This is the longest that the moon could have existed
2 Dinosaur DNA, hemoglobin ,muscle tissue has been found. These tissues could not have survived more than some thousands of years and the idea that they could h ave survived 65 million years is ridiculous.
3 At the rate that the sea gets saltier it too could at the oldest be only about a billion and a half years.
the lost goes on and on for 138 pages. It is fascinating and it's conclusion do seem obvious
Here is just a bit from that 138 pages.
1 The moon gets farther each year from the earth by about one and a half inches. So if the moon left the earth a billion and a half years ago it would be where it is now. This is the longest that the moon could have existed
2 Dinosaur DNA, hemoglobin ,muscle tissue has been found. These tissues could not have survived more than some thousands of years and the idea that they could h ave survived 65 million years is ridiculous.
3 At the rate that the sea gets saltier it too could at the oldest be only about a billion and a half years.
the lost goes on and on for 138 pages. It is fascinating and it's conclusion do seem obvious
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
I believe in evolution, timelines not so much as there is errors, and compromising circumstances to change data. .
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
Re: Forbidden Science
I think that if you read this easy to read 138 page book you might not believe in evolution. You can probably order a copy at the library
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
I believe it because it's happening every moment of the day, the best way to see it is viruses.
Mutation, and selection of what works usually.
Mutation, and selection of what works usually.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
Re: Forbidden Science
Creation doesn't say that life forms don't adapt. I would like you to take a look at this easy to read 138 page book that is full of facts that make evliution appear impossible
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
Bringing the bible into it with creation, The bible suggest a full grown earth, fully working, and evolution must be a part of it being it happens.
I would go over the book if I had it.
I would go over the book if I had it.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
Forbidden Botulism Toxin
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquin ... 55834.html
These scientists may be refusing to release details but I am sure the CIA already is figuring out uses for this new improved botulism toxin
These scientists may be refusing to release details but I am sure the CIA already is figuring out uses for this new improved botulism toxin
Skull Discovery Raises Serious Questions Over Evolution
They still are avoiding the topic of the conehead skulls as if they just want those kind of questions to go away.
Unprecedented Skull Discovery Raises Serious Questions Over Evolutionary Premises
http://christiannews.net
Share this article
The discovery of an ancient human skull in the Asian country of Georgia has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the theory of human evolution.
On October 18th, Science Magazine published a journal article titled,
Unprecedented Skull Discovery Raises Serious Questions Over Evolutionary Premises
http://christiannews.net
Share this article
The discovery of an ancient human skull in the Asian country of Georgia has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the theory of human evolution.
On October 18th, Science Magazine published a journal article titled,
Scientist Fired For Discussing Forbidden Science In Class
It came apparent to me many years ago that our education system and media only tel us what they want us to know and believe and that many truths a teacher can get fired for merely mentioning in class.
Questioning Evolution With Evidence Gets Professor Fired
August 05, 2014 | Jeff Metlon
According to California State University's mission statement, the university seeks to "advance and extend knowledge, learning, and culture..." and to "provide opportunities for individuals to develop intellectually, personally, and professionally". Their mission statement goes on to say that, in order to achieve these and other stated goals, the university promises that it "provides and environment in which scholarship, research, creative, artistic, and professional activity are valued and supported".
However, these lofty mission goals were put to the test recently when Mark Armitage, who worked as a researcher at the university's Northridge location and supervised the university's electron microscope laboratory, discovered evidence that contradicted the university's position on evolution.
Mr. Armitage, a respected scientist and a member of several respected professional organizations, including the American Society of Parasitologists, the Southern California Academy of Sciences, and the Microscopy Society of America, was conducting research on a triceratops horn, which he had discovered in 2012 in Montana. During the course of his examination of the triceratops horn, he placed it under a high-powered microscope and discovered the presence of soft tissue on the bones.
The presence of soft tissue on a dinosaur bone directly contradicts evolutionary theory because soft tissue indicates that the bone has not been fossilized. Evolutionary theory teaches that it takes millions of years for bones to become fossilized, and the commonly-held evolutionary explanation of dinosaurs is that they perished some sixty million years ago.
Professor Armitage is not the only scientist who has discovered the presence of soft tissue on dinosaur bones. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer discovered the presence of soft tissue on tyrannosaurus rex discoveries in 1997, 2005, and 2007. She went on to publish a scientific report on a hadrosaur in Science magazine, wherein her results were verified by a third party to offset the challenges her research was getting from the scientific community. Her research showed that, according to accepted biochemical decay rates, the soft tissue "would be dust by now", if the millions of years figure was used to date the find. In other words, the dinosaur bones she found, with the soft tissue, could not be millions of years old either.
The scientific community has always been very guarded on the subject of evolution, and has been extremely defensive against anything that goes against their established theories. There have been accounts of destruction of bones, falsification of data, and suppression of evidence that goes against evolutionary theory over the years. The peppered moth story, told in textbooks for decades, was shown to be falsified to support natural selection.
When Professor Armitage discovered the presence of soft tissue under the microscope, he initially shared his findings with his students, who were fascinated by the findings. One of these students, however, reported the findings to Professor Armitage's supervisor, who was not amused. According to Armitage, the supervisor stormed into his office and declared to Armitage that "[w]e will not tolerate your religion in this department!" While Armitage is a professing Christian, the goal of any science department should be to uncover the truth, regardless of the religious views of the scientist making the discovery. However, the exclamatory remark by the supervisor reveals that his anti-Christian bias, and his own religious following of evolutionary theory, is far more important than his own scientific curiosity.
After the outburst by his supervisor, Professor Armitage was promised by the head of the biology department that his religious views would be respected and that the supervisor's outburst was an "isolated incident", the working environment for Professor Armitage got progressively worse.
Professor Armitage published his findings concerning the presence of soft tissue in a peer-reviewed journal, Acta Histochemica. He explained that the purpose of his article was to merely present the evidence that he discovered of the soft tissue. His article did not promote creationism, or promote his Christian worldview in any way. In fact, he did not offer any conclusions in the article. He explained that:
Questioning Evolution With Evidence Gets Professor Fired
August 05, 2014 | Jeff Metlon
According to California State University's mission statement, the university seeks to "advance and extend knowledge, learning, and culture..." and to "provide opportunities for individuals to develop intellectually, personally, and professionally". Their mission statement goes on to say that, in order to achieve these and other stated goals, the university promises that it "provides and environment in which scholarship, research, creative, artistic, and professional activity are valued and supported".
However, these lofty mission goals were put to the test recently when Mark Armitage, who worked as a researcher at the university's Northridge location and supervised the university's electron microscope laboratory, discovered evidence that contradicted the university's position on evolution.
Mr. Armitage, a respected scientist and a member of several respected professional organizations, including the American Society of Parasitologists, the Southern California Academy of Sciences, and the Microscopy Society of America, was conducting research on a triceratops horn, which he had discovered in 2012 in Montana. During the course of his examination of the triceratops horn, he placed it under a high-powered microscope and discovered the presence of soft tissue on the bones.
The presence of soft tissue on a dinosaur bone directly contradicts evolutionary theory because soft tissue indicates that the bone has not been fossilized. Evolutionary theory teaches that it takes millions of years for bones to become fossilized, and the commonly-held evolutionary explanation of dinosaurs is that they perished some sixty million years ago.
Professor Armitage is not the only scientist who has discovered the presence of soft tissue on dinosaur bones. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer discovered the presence of soft tissue on tyrannosaurus rex discoveries in 1997, 2005, and 2007. She went on to publish a scientific report on a hadrosaur in Science magazine, wherein her results were verified by a third party to offset the challenges her research was getting from the scientific community. Her research showed that, according to accepted biochemical decay rates, the soft tissue "would be dust by now", if the millions of years figure was used to date the find. In other words, the dinosaur bones she found, with the soft tissue, could not be millions of years old either.
The scientific community has always been very guarded on the subject of evolution, and has been extremely defensive against anything that goes against their established theories. There have been accounts of destruction of bones, falsification of data, and suppression of evidence that goes against evolutionary theory over the years. The peppered moth story, told in textbooks for decades, was shown to be falsified to support natural selection.
When Professor Armitage discovered the presence of soft tissue under the microscope, he initially shared his findings with his students, who were fascinated by the findings. One of these students, however, reported the findings to Professor Armitage's supervisor, who was not amused. According to Armitage, the supervisor stormed into his office and declared to Armitage that "[w]e will not tolerate your religion in this department!" While Armitage is a professing Christian, the goal of any science department should be to uncover the truth, regardless of the religious views of the scientist making the discovery. However, the exclamatory remark by the supervisor reveals that his anti-Christian bias, and his own religious following of evolutionary theory, is far more important than his own scientific curiosity.
After the outburst by his supervisor, Professor Armitage was promised by the head of the biology department that his religious views would be respected and that the supervisor's outburst was an "isolated incident", the working environment for Professor Armitage got progressively worse.
Professor Armitage published his findings concerning the presence of soft tissue in a peer-reviewed journal, Acta Histochemica. He explained that the purpose of his article was to merely present the evidence that he discovered of the soft tissue. His article did not promote creationism, or promote his Christian worldview in any way. In fact, he did not offer any conclusions in the article. He explained that:
Scientists Baffled by Preserved Dinosaur Blood Cells
image: http://engine.newsmaxfeednetwork.com/i. ... nPSnwODyew
Support for a Young Earth? Scientists Baffled by Preserved Dinosaur Blood Cells
July 13, 2015 | Garrett Haley
The discovery of well-preserved blood and proteins in a supposedly 75-million-year-old dinosaur fossil has stumped secular scientists and led one Christian apologist to herald the findings as evidence of a young Earth.
A team of scientists at the U.K.
Support for a Young Earth? Scientists Baffled by Preserved Dinosaur Blood Cells
July 13, 2015 | Garrett Haley
The discovery of well-preserved blood and proteins in a supposedly 75-million-year-old dinosaur fossil has stumped secular scientists and led one Christian apologist to herald the findings as evidence of a young Earth.
A team of scientists at the U.K.
Re: Forbidden Science
How the Government Suppresses Free Energy Technologies
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/09/how ... ogies.html
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if better and cleaner energy sources were widely available and affordable to all of earth’s people? If so, you’re not alone, as the quest for a better energy existence has been the focus of many ingenious inventors, scientists, experimenters and even corporate and government scientists for generations.
We know it’s possible, but for some reason, though, society just can’t seem to get beyond 23.6 or so miles per gallon on average, highway. The gap between what science is clearly capable of and what is available to the consumer mass market is extraordinary, and here really is no need to be using up the world’s fossil fuels and building nuclear plants as if there were no tomorrow, but we do.
The truth is there for those who have eyes to see. Tremendous market forces and capital involved in government and in the energy and automobile industries make it practically impossible for any promising energy device or technology patent to emerge as a viable and accessible alternative in the real marketplace, and not just appearing on YouTube or at trade shows as prototypes. Alternatives do exist, but why are they not more broadly available?
In addition to the more famous cases such as Wilhelm Reich, and other scientific geniuses like Nikola Tesla, Raymond Rife, or Linus Pauling, many lesser known inventors have patented or attempted to patent functional energy devices that just never seem to make it to the public.
How exactly are advanced energy technologies and energy devices actually suppressed? One could argue that the suppression of energy technologies is a necessary evil by government, as Gary Vesperman has here:
An understandable reason for suppressing certain types of energy inventions is that the knowledge behind them is also capable of producing tremendously destructive advanced electromagnetic weapons such as the “death ray” apparently invented by Nikola Tesla. Hence many such new energy technologies, particularly those using this kind of knowledge of advanced electromagnetic principles, are considered “dual use” technologies that are among the 4,000 un-numbered patent applications confiscated in a vault at the US Patent and Trademark Office because of their military potential and the need to keep that knowledge from America’s enemies. [Gary Vesperman]
Some cases, perhaps, may surely be considered national security, but in today’s age, the public is discouraged from even looking into simple alternatives, and even the electric car was originally killed.
Who knows precisely how many opportunities the human race has lost to see free energy?
The Orion Project, an organization dedicated to the transformation of our energy usage took a close look at why this is the case, and exactly how the government suppresses free energy devices. In their review of past and now obscure technologies, they’ve noted the key ways in which alternative energy technologies are suppressed. Take a look:
Our review of past and now-obscure technological breakthroughs shows that these inventions have been suppressed or seized by the following broad categories of actions:
1.5.1 Acquisition of the technology by ‘front’ companies whose intent has been to ‘shelve’ the invention and prevent the device from coming to market.
1.5.2 Denial of patents and intellectual property protection by systematic action by the US and other patent offices.
1.5.3 Seizure or suppression of the technology by the illegal application of section 181 of the US Patent law or other illegal applications of national security provisions that result in the technology being classified or deemed “of significance to the national security”. Note that these applications are illegal actions taken by rogue, unsupervised individuals and entities who are working in collusion with interests to suppress these technologies.
1.5.4 Abuses by other regulatory or licensing entities, including but not limited to rogue elements within the Department of Defense, CIA, NSA, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Energy and others.
1.5.5 Targeting the inventor or company with financial scams, illegal financial arrangements that lead to the demise of the company, and similar traps.
1.5.6 Systematic interception of funds and essential financial support needed to develop and commercialize such fundamental new energy sources. Summary of Breakthrough Energy Technologies, 10/19/09 p. 6
Never buy another battery again (Ad)
1.5.7 A pattern of harassment, bomb threats, theft and other shadowy actions that frighten, intimidate and demoralize those inventing, holding or developing such technologies; significant bodily harm and murder have also apparently occurred.
1.5.8 Inducements through significant financial buyouts, offers of positions of power and prestige and other benefits to the owner of such technologies to secure their cooperation in suppressing such technologies.
1.5.9 Scientific establishment prejudice and rejection of the technology in light of unconventional electromagnetic effects thought to be not possible by current scientific conventional wisdom.
1.5.10 Corruption of scientific entities and leaders through clandestine liaisons with rogue classified or shadowy private projects that intend to suppress such devices.
1.5.11 Corruption of major media entities and key figures through clandestine liaisons with rogue classified or private shadowy projects that intend to suppress such devices. [Source]
As you can see, it’s full spectrum dominance when it comes to the suppression of energy technologies. What will it take to see a significant cultural shift toward sustainable energy technologies? One has to wonder if the suppression of such important things as free and overunity energy is even possible by humans. What do you think?
7 Suppressed Inventions That Would Have Changed the World
The 10 Inventions of Nikola Tesla That Changed the World
Read more articles from Buck Rogers.
Buck Rogers is the earth bound incarnation of that familiar part of our timeless cosmic selves, the rebel within. He is a surfer of ideals and meditates often on the promise of happiness in a world battered by the angry seas of human thoughtlessness. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com.
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter. This article (How the Government Suppresses Free Energy Technologies) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Buck Rogers and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/09/how ... ogies.html
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if better and cleaner energy sources were widely available and affordable to all of earth’s people? If so, you’re not alone, as the quest for a better energy existence has been the focus of many ingenious inventors, scientists, experimenters and even corporate and government scientists for generations.
We know it’s possible, but for some reason, though, society just can’t seem to get beyond 23.6 or so miles per gallon on average, highway. The gap between what science is clearly capable of and what is available to the consumer mass market is extraordinary, and here really is no need to be using up the world’s fossil fuels and building nuclear plants as if there were no tomorrow, but we do.
The truth is there for those who have eyes to see. Tremendous market forces and capital involved in government and in the energy and automobile industries make it practically impossible for any promising energy device or technology patent to emerge as a viable and accessible alternative in the real marketplace, and not just appearing on YouTube or at trade shows as prototypes. Alternatives do exist, but why are they not more broadly available?
In addition to the more famous cases such as Wilhelm Reich, and other scientific geniuses like Nikola Tesla, Raymond Rife, or Linus Pauling, many lesser known inventors have patented or attempted to patent functional energy devices that just never seem to make it to the public.
How exactly are advanced energy technologies and energy devices actually suppressed? One could argue that the suppression of energy technologies is a necessary evil by government, as Gary Vesperman has here:
An understandable reason for suppressing certain types of energy inventions is that the knowledge behind them is also capable of producing tremendously destructive advanced electromagnetic weapons such as the “death ray” apparently invented by Nikola Tesla. Hence many such new energy technologies, particularly those using this kind of knowledge of advanced electromagnetic principles, are considered “dual use” technologies that are among the 4,000 un-numbered patent applications confiscated in a vault at the US Patent and Trademark Office because of their military potential and the need to keep that knowledge from America’s enemies. [Gary Vesperman]
Some cases, perhaps, may surely be considered national security, but in today’s age, the public is discouraged from even looking into simple alternatives, and even the electric car was originally killed.
Who knows precisely how many opportunities the human race has lost to see free energy?
The Orion Project, an organization dedicated to the transformation of our energy usage took a close look at why this is the case, and exactly how the government suppresses free energy devices. In their review of past and now obscure technologies, they’ve noted the key ways in which alternative energy technologies are suppressed. Take a look:
Our review of past and now-obscure technological breakthroughs shows that these inventions have been suppressed or seized by the following broad categories of actions:
1.5.1 Acquisition of the technology by ‘front’ companies whose intent has been to ‘shelve’ the invention and prevent the device from coming to market.
1.5.2 Denial of patents and intellectual property protection by systematic action by the US and other patent offices.
1.5.3 Seizure or suppression of the technology by the illegal application of section 181 of the US Patent law or other illegal applications of national security provisions that result in the technology being classified or deemed “of significance to the national security”. Note that these applications are illegal actions taken by rogue, unsupervised individuals and entities who are working in collusion with interests to suppress these technologies.
1.5.4 Abuses by other regulatory or licensing entities, including but not limited to rogue elements within the Department of Defense, CIA, NSA, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Energy and others.
1.5.5 Targeting the inventor or company with financial scams, illegal financial arrangements that lead to the demise of the company, and similar traps.
1.5.6 Systematic interception of funds and essential financial support needed to develop and commercialize such fundamental new energy sources. Summary of Breakthrough Energy Technologies, 10/19/09 p. 6
Never buy another battery again (Ad)
1.5.7 A pattern of harassment, bomb threats, theft and other shadowy actions that frighten, intimidate and demoralize those inventing, holding or developing such technologies; significant bodily harm and murder have also apparently occurred.
1.5.8 Inducements through significant financial buyouts, offers of positions of power and prestige and other benefits to the owner of such technologies to secure their cooperation in suppressing such technologies.
1.5.9 Scientific establishment prejudice and rejection of the technology in light of unconventional electromagnetic effects thought to be not possible by current scientific conventional wisdom.
1.5.10 Corruption of scientific entities and leaders through clandestine liaisons with rogue classified or shadowy private projects that intend to suppress such devices.
1.5.11 Corruption of major media entities and key figures through clandestine liaisons with rogue classified or private shadowy projects that intend to suppress such devices. [Source]
As you can see, it’s full spectrum dominance when it comes to the suppression of energy technologies. What will it take to see a significant cultural shift toward sustainable energy technologies? One has to wonder if the suppression of such important things as free and overunity energy is even possible by humans. What do you think?
7 Suppressed Inventions That Would Have Changed the World
The 10 Inventions of Nikola Tesla That Changed the World
Read more articles from Buck Rogers.
Buck Rogers is the earth bound incarnation of that familiar part of our timeless cosmic selves, the rebel within. He is a surfer of ideals and meditates often on the promise of happiness in a world battered by the angry seas of human thoughtlessness. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com.
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter. This article (How the Government Suppresses Free Energy Technologies) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Buck Rogers and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
I would like to see some case studies from like Japan, or Chernobyl. July 6, 2012
Forbidden Science: Low Level Radiation and Cancer
By Norman Rogers
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ancer.html
Some things are hard to believe. What you've been told about low-level radiation by the people who are supposed to be responsible authorities is very wrong. The evidence that the official story is wrong is overwhelming. They know about the evidence. Yet because they have a vested interest in being wrong, they willfully keep being wrong. There is massive evidence that low levels of radiation rather than causing cancer, actually suppress cancer. The reason is, probably, that radiation in small or moderate quantities stimulates cellular repair mechanisms. This is not to negate the fact that large amounts of radiation can kill you or make you sick. This protective effect of low levels of radiation is called radiation hormesis.
The case of radiation hormesis provides yet more evidence that the scientific establishment and the EPA are lacking in objectivity when their interests are at stake. They cling to scare stories like leeches. Be it ionizing radiation or global warming they will not admit that they were wrong, at least if they can avoid it.
Our bodies are bombarded with ionizing radiation because it is everywhere. Radiation is ionizing if the rays or particles have sufficient energy to rip electrons from atoms, a feat that can disrupt biochemical systems. Ionizing radiation comes in the form of cosmic rays, radioactive minerals and even potassium 40, the radioactive isotope of potassium that is always in our bodies and lurking everyplace where potassium is found. The particles and rays from radioactive decay rip through our cells leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Our bodies have powerful mechanisms evolved over millions of years to deal with the destruction caused by radiation.
The official method of estimating the danger of radiation is called the linear no threshold (LNT) method. This can be illustrated by the following fictional analogy. Suppose that if humans are hit in the head, above the ear, by an iron ball weighing 3 pounds and traveling 20 miles per hour, half of the subjects will die. Then ask the question what percentage of the subjects will die if hit in the head by a BB traveling 20 miles per hour and weighing 2 tenths of a gram or 1/6000th as much? According to the linear no threshold theory, the death rate would be 1/6000th as high. Of course a tiny BB thrown gently will be absolutely harmless and no one will die. However if the experiment is performed on hundreds of thousands of people, probably some will die, because people die all the time for various reasons. It is possible that if an epidemiologist were investigating people hit by gently thrown BB's he would attribute the random natural deaths to the BB syndrome, because, after all, that is what he is investigating. Positive results are publishable, negative results are a waste of time for building one's career.
The advocates of the LNT method think that each particle resulting from radioactive decay traversing body cells has a small chance of causing cancer, so the chance of cancer should be proportional to the radiation level. If this model were correct, then elephants would be expected to have an incidence of cancer millions of times higher than mice because many more particles traverse their bodies due to their greater size. But, both creatures have similar rates of cancer. Elephants weight about 250,000 times more than mice and live about 16 times longer. If cancer is proportional to mass times lifetime, as the LNT theory suggests, then elephants should have about 4 million times as much cancer as mice. This dilemma is somewhat resolved if we recognize that there are cellular level and immune system repair mechanisms that repair damage from radiation and the mechanisms are probably better evolved in elephants than in mice. The fact that cancer is much more common in older animals suggests that the repair mechanisms lose efficiency with age. We should keep in mind that we don't have a really good grasp as to what causes cancer. We have correlations between causes and effects and the meaning is not always clear. Yes, smoking causes lung cancer, but the exact mechanism remains obscure.
We can't double the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere as a quick experiment to test out the theory of global warming. However, we can irradiate animals to test the effects of radiation. Such experiments have even been done inadvertently on humans, for example the atomic bomb attacks on Japan and various radiation accidents and occupational exposures. These experiments usually show that although massive doses of radiation are bad for you, small doses seem to have a positive effect on health. That's an instance of hormesis, the theory that things that are bad for you in large quantities may be good for you in small quantities.
Radiation is conveniently measured in units of millisieverts, abbreviated mSv. A dose of 5,000 mSv in a short period of time will usually kill you. Background radiation from the Earth and cosmic rays is typically about 3 mSv per year. But in certain communities, such as around Ramsar in Iran or certain places in India, background radiation can be 50 times higher, 150 mSv per year or more. The people who live in these places don't seem to suffer any ill effects. The government places a limit of 50 mSv per year for workers in nuclear industries.
A remarkable accidental human experiment was performed in Taiwan beginning in 1983. A large quantity of steel bars used in reinforced concrete construction was accidentally contaminated with highly radioactive cobalt 60. This steel was incorporated into approximately 180 buildings. The radioactivity was gradually discovered from 1992 to 1996. By that time the radioactivity had declined by a factor of 4 since the half life of cobalt 60 is 5.3 years and about 2 half lives had passed. The buildings were extensively investigated and the radiation levels measured in various ways. Approximately 10,000 people were irradiated by varying amounts depending where they lived and how long they lived in the affected buildings. The amount of radiation received by the residents was far above background levels with some residents initially, in 1983, receiving as much as 500 mSv per year or more than 100 times background. The average initial annual dose was about 50 mSv, declining as the cobalt 60 decayed. Using accepted LNT methods based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection, assuming that the age distribution of the occupants was similar to the general population of Taiwan, there should have been 302 cancer deaths among the residents, 232 natural and 70 excess deaths due to radiation. Remarkably only 7 deaths were found. There should have been 46 birth defects, but only 3 were found. The conclusion is that not only does radiation at these levels not cause cancer or birth defects; it has a strong protective effect. All this was described in a highly citied scientific paper[1] published in 2004. The paper was authored by 14 very well credentialed Taiwanese scientists.
The nuclear shipyard study was a well-designed epidemiological study of approximately 30,000 American shipyard workers who worked on nuclear powered ships.[2] They were exposed to radiation related to the nuclear reactors on the ships. A similar sized and well-matched control group of shipyard workers who worked on non-nuclear ships was also established. The exposure of the workers to radiation was well documented because the workers were required to wear radiation badges and careful records of exposure were kept. The study, costing $10 million, spanned the years 1980 to 1988 for workers working between 1957 and 1981. A 500 page final report was delivered in 1991. The workers' radiation exposure, of about 3 to 5 times background, was much less than the more highly radiated occupants of the Taiwanese apartment buildings[3]. The workers exposed to more than 5 mSv per year had a death rate approximately 25% lower than the control group. Death rates from cancer were also significantly lower. This result is similar to the improved health experienced by British radiologists exposed to a similar amount of radiation compared to physicians not exposed to radiation.[4]
Radon is a noble gas that is naturally present as a decay product of uranium. It seeps out of the soil in very small amounts, but due to its short half life, high radioactivity and subsequent daughter decay products, it is a significant contributor to low level background radiation. The U.S. government has put a huge effort into reducing exposure to radon in homes in order to reduce the incidence of lung cancer. Homeowners are encouraged to test their homes for radon and to modify their homes by adding ventilation or barriers to reduce the concentrations of radon.
Radon is known to cause lung cancer in underground uranium miners who, at least before better ventilation was introduced in the mines, were exposed to very high concentrations. The EPA uses the LNT theory to extrapolate from cancer rates of miners to radon cancers in homeowners. The cancer rate is assumed to be proportional to radon concentration, an application of LNT. Since radon is a gas and can be inhaled it is expected to target the lungs. When it decays it emits an alpha particle that does not travel far, but from inside lungs can damage cells in close proximity to the decay.
The physicist Bernard Cohen, a strong proponent of hormesis, compared lung cancer rates to average home radon concentrations in 1601 counties in the U.S. that hold 90% of the population. If the LNT theory holds, a positive correlation would be expected -- more radon, more cancer. However he found the opposite. At low levels in homes, more radon results in considerably less cancer.[5] If Cohen's results are true, the efforts of the EPA to reduce household radon are not only useless, but counterproductive. In a 2002 review article[6] Cohen discussed the various mechanisms that can explain hormesis, such as the stimulation of inbuilt cellular repair mechanisms by low level radiation. If Cohen's results were to be accepted, then the government would be shown as sponsoring a radon control enterprise that actually causes cancer. Not surprisingly, Cohen has been dismissed out of hand, even though he put much effort into answering spurious objections to his work.
Epidemiological studies based on interviews with lung cancer victims and measurements of radon in their homes have been done. But these studies are plagued by uncertainties due to the confounding effect of smoking and the uncertain recollections of persons dying of cancer. Almost everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker, so the studies are trying to discover a small increment in the cancer rate attributable to radon.
Scientific theories can become prisoners of vested interests. If the LNT theory is false and hormesis is true, then vast sums spent to protect against low level radiation have been wasted. The cost of the nuclear power has been unfairly increased by unjustified alarm concerning the effects of low level radiation. The evidence for hormesis is vast, going far beyond the few examples given in this article. Vested interests embedded in government agencies and quasi official bodies, such as the National Academies of Science, refuse to take hormesis seriously because their careers are built on the LNT theory or perhaps because they are just afraid of upsetting the status quo.
A very similar situation exists with global warming. The theories that predict disastrous consequences from adding CO2 to the atmosphere are very weak and are being contradicted by temperature trends in the atmosphere and ocean. However, the validity of the theory is systematically exaggerated and problems minimized to protect the vast enterprise that runs on global warming hysteria. Note that global warming and hormesis come together in relating to the issue of nuclear power.
A big deal is made of conflicts of interest when industries with vested interests defend their actions with scientific studies. It is assumed that the results are tainted due to the financial conflict of interest. Sometimes the results are tainted and sometimes they aren't. However scientists and scientific organizations (e.g. the EPA or the National Academies of Science) also have vested interests. Often the vested interest is just the human interest in not being shown to be wrong. Sometimes the vested interest is concrete, the benefit of getting consulting contracts, promotions or basking in the sunshine of prestige. Unfortunately the scientific establishment is given a pass and allowed the pretense that it is disinterested and not influenced by considerations of vanity and greed like everyone else.
Bernard Cohen died in March, 2012 at the age of 87. When he did most of his work on hormesis he was already an emeritus professor. Scientific dissenters, be it in global warming or radiation health physics, are often well into senior citizenhood. The reason is that the older you get the less you worry about your future career and the less you fear saying what you think.
Norman Rogers is a senior citizen and a senior policy advisor at the Heartland Institute, a Midwest think tank. He writes often about global warming and has a website.
[1] Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? W.L. Chen et al. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 1 Spring 2004
[2] For s summary of the study see: Nuclear shipyard worker study (1980-1988): a large cohort exposed to low-dose-rate gamma radiation, Int. J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005. Ruth Sponsler and John R. Cameron
[3] Background radiation for occupants of apartment buildings is generally low due to their separation from sources of radiation from the Earth.
[4] Berrington, A., Darby, S.C., Weiss, H.A. and Doll, R. (2001) '100 years of observation on British radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997', Br. J. Radiol., Vol. 74, No. 882, pp.507-519.
[5] TEST OF THE LINEAR-NO THRESHOLD THEORY OF RADIATION CARCINOGENESIS FOR INHALED RADON DECAY PRODUCTS Bernard L. Cohen-Health Physics February 1995. Volume 68. Number 2
[6] Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation, Bernard L. Cohen, American Journal of Roentgenology, November 2002
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
Re: Forbidden Science
So much for the objectivity of science.
CLIMATE ALARMIST CAUGHT IN ‘LARGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY’
GettyImages-globalwarming
by JAMES DELINGPOLE2 Oct 20153,537
The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US history.”
Smith has two main areas of concern.
First, the apparent engagement by the institute in “partisan political activity” – which, as a non-profit, it is forbidden by law from doing.
Second, what precisely has the IGES institute done with the $63 million in taxpayer grants which it has received since 2001 and which appears to have resulted in remarkably little published research?
For example, as Watts Up With That? notes, a $4.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to one of the institute’s offshoots appears to have resulted in just one published paper.
But the amount which has gone into the pockets of Shukla and his cronies runs into the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2013 and 2014, for example, Shukla and his wife enjoyed a combined income in excess of $800,000 a year.
Steve McIntyre, the investigator who shattered Michael Mann’s global-warming ‘Hockey Stick’ claim, has done a detailed breakdown of the sums involved. He calls it Shukla’s Gold.
In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Shukla -$128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700). Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.
Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013. Combined with Shukla’s university salary, the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014. In addition, as noted above, Shukla’s daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.
The story began last month when, as we reported at Breitbart, twenty alarmist scientists – led by Shukla – wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to use RICO laws to crush climate skeptics.
Shukla’s second big mistake was to send the letter not from his university address but from his non-profit, the IGES.
But his first, far bigger mistake, was his hubris in organizing the letter in the first place. It drew the attention of Shukla’s critics to something which, presumably, he would have preferred to keep secret: that for nearly 14 years, he, his family and his friends have been gorging themselves on taxpayers’ money at IGES; and that this money comes on top of the very generous salary he receives for doing much the same work at George Mason University (GMU).
It’s the latter detail which has led former Virginia State Climatologist Pat Michaels – one of the skeptics who might have been affected by Shukla’s proposed RICO prosecutions – to describe this as “the largest science scandal in US history.”
Under federal law, state employees may not be remunerated for doing work which falls under their state employee remit. As a Professor at GMU, Shukla is definitely an employee of the state. And the work for which he has most lavishly been rewarding himself at IGES appears to be remarkably similar to the work he does at GMU as professor of climate dynamics.
If GMU was aware of these extra-curricular payments, then it was in breach of its own policy on “financial conflicts of interest in federally funded research.”
If it wasn’t aware of them, then, Shukla legally may be required to send half of that $63 million in federal grants to his employer, GMU.
For many readers, though, perhaps the biggest take-home message of this extraordinary story is: Who do these climate alarmists think they are?
Perhaps $63 million in federal grants is just peanuts if you’re gorging on the climate-change smorgasbord, but for most of the rest of us, that constitutes a serious sum of money. Especially when we know it is being taken from us in the form of taxes.
Do they really feel under no obligation to spend it well?
Do they actually feel so sanctified by the rightness of their cause that they deserve to be immune from scrutiny or criticism?
CLIMATE ALARMIST CAUGHT IN ‘LARGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY’
GettyImages-globalwarming
by JAMES DELINGPOLE2 Oct 20153,537
The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US history.”
Smith has two main areas of concern.
First, the apparent engagement by the institute in “partisan political activity” – which, as a non-profit, it is forbidden by law from doing.
Second, what precisely has the IGES institute done with the $63 million in taxpayer grants which it has received since 2001 and which appears to have resulted in remarkably little published research?
For example, as Watts Up With That? notes, a $4.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to one of the institute’s offshoots appears to have resulted in just one published paper.
But the amount which has gone into the pockets of Shukla and his cronies runs into the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2013 and 2014, for example, Shukla and his wife enjoyed a combined income in excess of $800,000 a year.
Steve McIntyre, the investigator who shattered Michael Mann’s global-warming ‘Hockey Stick’ claim, has done a detailed breakdown of the sums involved. He calls it Shukla’s Gold.
In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Shukla -$128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700). Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.
Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013. Combined with Shukla’s university salary, the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014. In addition, as noted above, Shukla’s daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.
The story began last month when, as we reported at Breitbart, twenty alarmist scientists – led by Shukla – wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to use RICO laws to crush climate skeptics.
Shukla’s second big mistake was to send the letter not from his university address but from his non-profit, the IGES.
But his first, far bigger mistake, was his hubris in organizing the letter in the first place. It drew the attention of Shukla’s critics to something which, presumably, he would have preferred to keep secret: that for nearly 14 years, he, his family and his friends have been gorging themselves on taxpayers’ money at IGES; and that this money comes on top of the very generous salary he receives for doing much the same work at George Mason University (GMU).
It’s the latter detail which has led former Virginia State Climatologist Pat Michaels – one of the skeptics who might have been affected by Shukla’s proposed RICO prosecutions – to describe this as “the largest science scandal in US history.”
Under federal law, state employees may not be remunerated for doing work which falls under their state employee remit. As a Professor at GMU, Shukla is definitely an employee of the state. And the work for which he has most lavishly been rewarding himself at IGES appears to be remarkably similar to the work he does at GMU as professor of climate dynamics.
If GMU was aware of these extra-curricular payments, then it was in breach of its own policy on “financial conflicts of interest in federally funded research.”
If it wasn’t aware of them, then, Shukla legally may be required to send half of that $63 million in federal grants to his employer, GMU.
For many readers, though, perhaps the biggest take-home message of this extraordinary story is: Who do these climate alarmists think they are?
Perhaps $63 million in federal grants is just peanuts if you’re gorging on the climate-change smorgasbord, but for most of the rest of us, that constitutes a serious sum of money. Especially when we know it is being taken from us in the form of taxes.
Do they really feel under no obligation to spend it well?
Do they actually feel so sanctified by the rightness of their cause that they deserve to be immune from scrutiny or criticism?
-
Blue Frost
- SUPER VIP
- Posts: 98035
- Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
- Location: Yodenheim
Re: Forbidden Science
This might interest you on how people ignore real science, and long term climate history.
Yes we should take care of the planet, but when I buy something regulations are already in place. The issue is corruption in government, and business.
[video][/video]
Yes we should take care of the planet, but when I buy something regulations are already in place. The issue is corruption in government, and business.
[video][/video]
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
Forbidden Science
I can see how battery companies would want to keep a discovery like this kept secret. I had never heard of this battery. is there a teacher in the world that has ever mentioned this battery ? It's been running since 1840 ? Science was very primitive then so I have to wonder if this technology has not only been in use secretly by those in the know and massively and secretly improved upon.
The Mystery of the Continuously Functioning Battery From 1840
A battery at the University of Oxford has been incessantly ringing two bells for 175 years—but no one knows exactly why it’s lasted so long
Jason Koebler over at Motherboard recently highlighted a scientific mystery that may not be solved any time soon.
In the mid-1800s, Robert Walker, a physics professor at the University of Oxford, acquired an interesting device. It was a battery designed to propel a hanging metal ball quickly back and forth, between two small bells. Today, 175 years after it was manufactured, the Oxford Electric Bell, as it is often referred to, is still ringing—in fact, it is said to have rung over 10 billion times.
Built by Watkins and Hill, a London instrument-manufacturing firm and with a note attached in Walker’s own hand reading “Set up in 1840,” the battery would eventually come to be displayed at the University’s Clarendon Laboratory.
How exactly has the apparatus, dubbed the “world’s most durable battery” by the Guiness Book of World Records, functioned for so long? No one knows for sure. That’s because, as Koebler points out, opening the device could potentially “ruin an experiment to see how long it will last.”
We have a good idea about the basics of its composition, however. It is made up of dry piles, one of the first forms of electric batteries originally developed in the early 19th century by priest and physicist Giuseppe Zamboni.
“They use alternating discs of silver, zinc, sulfur, and other materials to generate low currents of electricity,” writes Koebler. He continues:
"What the piles are made of is not known with certainty, but it is clear that the outer coating is of sulphur, and this seals in the cells and the electrolyte," AJ Croft, a former researcher at the Clarendon Laboratory, wrote in a 1984 paper describing the bell in the European Journal of Physics. "Piles similar to this were made by Zamboni, whose batteries were constituted of about 2,000 pairs of discs of tin foil glued to paper impregnated with zinc sulphate and coated on the other side with manganese dioxide."
Luckily for anyone who may be stationed nearby, the bell is not incessantly dinging like some possessed alarm clock. It's actually barely audible, because the charge is so low—the metal ball responsible for the ringing only delicately vibrates between the two bells.
In order to solve the mystery of the Oxford Electric Bell once and for all, researchers will likely have to wait until either the battery finally loses its charge or else the ringing mechanism breaks on its own from old age.
For now, though, the contraption stands as the “longest running science experiment,” according to Mental Floss. The second longest? That would be the Beverly Clock at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, which runs with the help of changes in atmospheric pressure and continues to tick-tock despite only last being rewound in 1864.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 6G0x1jj.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
The Mystery of the Continuously Functioning Battery From 1840
A battery at the University of Oxford has been incessantly ringing two bells for 175 years—but no one knows exactly why it’s lasted so long
Jason Koebler over at Motherboard recently highlighted a scientific mystery that may not be solved any time soon.
In the mid-1800s, Robert Walker, a physics professor at the University of Oxford, acquired an interesting device. It was a battery designed to propel a hanging metal ball quickly back and forth, between two small bells. Today, 175 years after it was manufactured, the Oxford Electric Bell, as it is often referred to, is still ringing—in fact, it is said to have rung over 10 billion times.
Built by Watkins and Hill, a London instrument-manufacturing firm and with a note attached in Walker’s own hand reading “Set up in 1840,” the battery would eventually come to be displayed at the University’s Clarendon Laboratory.
How exactly has the apparatus, dubbed the “world’s most durable battery” by the Guiness Book of World Records, functioned for so long? No one knows for sure. That’s because, as Koebler points out, opening the device could potentially “ruin an experiment to see how long it will last.”
We have a good idea about the basics of its composition, however. It is made up of dry piles, one of the first forms of electric batteries originally developed in the early 19th century by priest and physicist Giuseppe Zamboni.
“They use alternating discs of silver, zinc, sulfur, and other materials to generate low currents of electricity,” writes Koebler. He continues:
"What the piles are made of is not known with certainty, but it is clear that the outer coating is of sulphur, and this seals in the cells and the electrolyte," AJ Croft, a former researcher at the Clarendon Laboratory, wrote in a 1984 paper describing the bell in the European Journal of Physics. "Piles similar to this were made by Zamboni, whose batteries were constituted of about 2,000 pairs of discs of tin foil glued to paper impregnated with zinc sulphate and coated on the other side with manganese dioxide."
Luckily for anyone who may be stationed nearby, the bell is not incessantly dinging like some possessed alarm clock. It's actually barely audible, because the charge is so low—the metal ball responsible for the ringing only delicately vibrates between the two bells.
In order to solve the mystery of the Oxford Electric Bell once and for all, researchers will likely have to wait until either the battery finally loses its charge or else the ringing mechanism breaks on its own from old age.
For now, though, the contraption stands as the “longest running science experiment,” according to Mental Floss. The second longest? That would be the Beverly Clock at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, which runs with the help of changes in atmospheric pressure and continues to tick-tock despite only last being rewound in 1864.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 6G0x1jj.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Re: Forbidden Science
If they knew this stuff in the seventies then what do they know now ?