You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lead Poisoning
- Thread starter Bella
- Start date
I enjoy the trust some of you have in science. I remember in the seventies the scare over eating eggs. One egg and you doomed yourself to an heart attack and an early grave. Now some scientists say eggs may be one of the healthiest foods you could eat.
Let's not.forget about how bad fat is for us. They removed or reduced fat in food and replaced it with sugar and other carbohydrates so you wouldn't lose flavor. The scientists now wonder why we have an obesity and diabetes epidemic.
Global warming scientists have been warning us for nearly twenty years of the disasters that await us if we don't change the types of lightbulbs we use and all start driving electric cars. From what iI read the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.
I guess science can be wrong.
Let's not.forget about how bad fat is for us. They removed or reduced fat in food and replaced it with sugar and other carbohydrates so you wouldn't lose flavor. The scientists now wonder why we have an obesity and diabetes epidemic.
Global warming scientists have been warning us for nearly twenty years of the disasters that await us if we don't change the types of lightbulbs we use and all start driving electric cars. From what iI read the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.
I guess science can be wrong.
Sure it can. Scientists are humans and humans sometimes make mistakes.I guess science can be wrong.
It's important to keep that in mind.
It's also important to keep in mind that just because science CAN be wrong doesn't mean it's ALWAYS wrong.
"Science" at one time, said you would fall off the edge of the earth if you sailed too far out.
before the global warming scare, we were all going to freeze to death in the coming Ice Age.
Eating meat bad. Eating meat good. Almost seems to change weekly.
I have no problem with science being mistaken. Other science shows the mistakes.
What I see as bad is people trying to force us to do or not do this, or that, using wrong science as the justification. The cynical among us will say, "follow the money", and, I can't entirely say they are wrong.
Frankly the global warming people both amuse and frighten me. Even when their models are discredited by both independent data and some of the very people who made up their models, they refuse to recant their mantra.
When a single volcanic eruption of a couple weeks duration puts more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than mankind had throughout recorded history, I find it hard to believe that WE are the cause of global warming.
What frightens me is that the mantra is being taught in schools, and children swallow it, hook, line, and sinker. These children then will grow up, "knowing" what is right, which is what they learned in school. And they will vote....
and hold public office...
worrisome....
before the global warming scare, we were all going to freeze to death in the coming Ice Age.
Eating meat bad. Eating meat good. Almost seems to change weekly.
I have no problem with science being mistaken. Other science shows the mistakes.
What I see as bad is people trying to force us to do or not do this, or that, using wrong science as the justification. The cynical among us will say, "follow the money", and, I can't entirely say they are wrong.
Frankly the global warming people both amuse and frighten me. Even when their models are discredited by both independent data and some of the very people who made up their models, they refuse to recant their mantra.
When a single volcanic eruption of a couple weeks duration puts more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than mankind had throughout recorded history, I find it hard to believe that WE are the cause of global warming.
What frightens me is that the mantra is being taught in schools, and children swallow it, hook, line, and sinker. These children then will grow up, "knowing" what is right, which is what they learned in school. And they will vote....
and hold public office...
worrisome....
Global warming (I guess we're supposed to call it "climate change" now) has unfortunately become as much a political issue as a technical one, and that makes it very difficult to sort truth from fiction. In spite of what its advocates would have us all believe, the science is far from settled, which makes it all the more troubling when it's taught as fact in public school classrooms.
And, in spite of the laughably hyperbolic and fallacious post earlier, nutrition has become one of the more visible bastions of charlatans and others who exist by parting fools and their money. The nutrition gurus similarly, and disingenuously, present complex and poorly understood issues as settled science.
But (to circle back to what the topic of the thread is) to assume from those two examples, and/or perhaps others, or anecdotal information about Uncle Fred, who sprinkles No. 9 shot on his Wheaties in the morning and runs marathons, that there is some question about the effects of lead on the human body is to be no better than the pseudoscientists who peddle nonsense for a living. Is there a nonzero probability that everyone - and I mean, everyone - with technical credentials in the field is wrong, and in fact lead is just fine for you? Yes there is, but the probability of that being the case is very, very, low. Is there a nonzero probability that you can drive your car at 100 mph into a brick wall and, instead of destroying the car and yourself, pass harmlessly through it? Modern physics makes it absolutely clear that such a possibility exists, but the chances of it happening are very, very, small. In both cases, it makes more sense to base one's decisions and actions on what is highly probable rather than on what is technically possible, but extremely unlikely.
And, in spite of the laughably hyperbolic and fallacious post earlier, nutrition has become one of the more visible bastions of charlatans and others who exist by parting fools and their money. The nutrition gurus similarly, and disingenuously, present complex and poorly understood issues as settled science.
But (to circle back to what the topic of the thread is) to assume from those two examples, and/or perhaps others, or anecdotal information about Uncle Fred, who sprinkles No. 9 shot on his Wheaties in the morning and runs marathons, that there is some question about the effects of lead on the human body is to be no better than the pseudoscientists who peddle nonsense for a living. Is there a nonzero probability that everyone - and I mean, everyone - with technical credentials in the field is wrong, and in fact lead is just fine for you? Yes there is, but the probability of that being the case is very, very, low. Is there a nonzero probability that you can drive your car at 100 mph into a brick wall and, instead of destroying the car and yourself, pass harmlessly through it? Modern physics makes it absolutely clear that such a possibility exists, but the chances of it happening are very, very, small. In both cases, it makes more sense to base one's decisions and actions on what is highly probable rather than on what is technically possible, but extremely unlikely.