tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post2062841902551717668..comments2024-02-06T07:57:54.467+00:00Comments on underdogs bite upwards: Chubbyphobia.Leg-ironhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04932361799889315359noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-49493079262587826062011-08-28T21:15:08.837+01:002011-08-28T21:15:08.837+01:00Smashing norks. Norks? As in obese mammary glands?...<i>Smashing norks</i>. Norks? As in obese mammary glands? God, I love it. I foolishly used to presume that I understood and spoke English. What on earth is the etymology of this term?smokervoterhttp://smokervoter.webs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-79712768456813147802011-08-27T23:34:10.147+01:002011-08-27T23:34:10.147+01:00the British Standard Human model
I was talking ab...<i>the British Standard Human model</i><br /><br />I was talking about this very idea on our Bolton Smoking Club blog only the other day. I called it "The Standard Human Being". <br /><br />I was serious. <br /><br />It seems to me that epidemiology was a worthy science when it was concerned with real disease epidemics. The famous one is Snow's (?) discovery of the source of the cholera epidemic in London in the 1800s (a particular water pump). Similar real science situations occurred with the discovery of the source of malaria. <br /><br />The modern epidemiological studies of tobacco smoking and 'disease' are not remotely similar. They demand a group of 'standard human beings' as a control group. (This is not very accurate, but I am sure that people will understand what I mean)<br /><br />Thus, the fact that more people who suffer from lung cancer are, or have been, smokers means that smoking is the cause of the lung cancer according to them. But.....what consideration is given to the fact that all human beings are different genetically? None....as far as I can see. Therefore, there is a fundamental fault in the studies - and that is that Epidemiology assumes a 'Standard Human Being'. <br /><br />It is possible to say that <i>anyone</i> who smokes is at risk of developing a lung cancer condition, but it is only possible to say that if you ignore <i>genetic susceptibility</i> and assume that there is a Standard Human Being - in which case, <i>everyone</i> is susceptible. But there is no such thing as a 'Standard Human Being'.<br /><br />I ask this question: <br /><br />Has there ever been a study of why certain people, who smoked heavily all their lives and died at the age of, say, 95, did NOT suffer from lung cancer? It is possible that some smokers are genetically inclined to be suscepible to lung cancer. It is also possible that some people are genetically inclined to get 'heart disease' and/or diabetes from eating too much.<br /><br />Badly explained, I'm afraid, but the best I can do at this time of night!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-24022591689627844992011-08-27T22:02:19.750+01:002011-08-27T22:02:19.750+01:00"... the magazine is a Stalinist mouthpiece n...<i>"... the magazine is a Stalinist mouthpiece now."</i><br /><br />Ain't that the truth.<br /><br />I first noticed the preachy editorials sneaking in during the HIV years... but now the 'right-on messages' are interwoven into the main articles.John Pickworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02166443099429490782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-395353540564296252011-08-27T17:29:27.373+01:002011-08-27T17:29:27.373+01:00Frank-
That doesn't actually work. The oarsmen...Frank-<br />That doesn't actually work. The oarsmen are running on "renewables", and just cycling CO2. The diesels are releasing it from very long-term storage, adding it to the present stock.<br /><br />But the oarsmen, now being gainfully employed, (presumably they weren't before?), will now be more prolific consumers of (fossil-energy-based) goods and services?<br /><br />Anyway, that oil is gonna get used, as fast as someone can pump it. We'll cope if there are any side-effects. There isn't actually an alternative. It will happen.<br /><br />The whole scam is an excuse to practise controlling us.Zaphodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03695819392577629492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-13271041204581842262011-08-27T16:30:20.144+01:002011-08-27T16:30:20.144+01:00It's not even as if they've got the scienc...It's not even as if they've got the science right, as I set out in <a href="http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/eat-for-victory/" rel="nofollow">Eat For Victory</a> last week. Making fat people exercise releases <i>more</i> CO2 into the atmosphere, because fat people store carbon just like trees.<br /><br />But in the case of shipping, there can be little doubt that modern diesel engines are far more efficient in converting carbon fuel into useful work than any bunch of oarsmen. So the result will be that the inefficient oarsmen will end up expending far more energy (and CO2) to do the same amount of work as the diesel engines.<br /><br />So it's not just a Nazi sentiment that has been published in the New Scientist, but also bad science.Frank Davishttp://cfrankdavis.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-57902635652909781112011-08-27T16:04:24.810+01:002011-08-27T16:04:24.810+01:00Good post, Leg-iron. I used to be a New Scientist ...Good post, Leg-iron. I used to be a New Scientist subscriber too, and one reason I stopped was the <br />relentless global warmism. By the way, on the subject of CO2 and the "obesity epidemic", <a href="http://www.scotlandfoodanddrink.org/news/article-info/2617/scots-researchers-suggest-link-between-obesity-and-global-warming.aspx" rel="nofollow">here's</a> a recent article that will probably make you annoyed. I know it made me very annoyed! Definitely in the FFS category.Alex Cullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00138628377297964672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-85761245630364781252011-08-27T15:11:08.018+01:002011-08-27T15:11:08.018+01:00Kitler-
New Scientist can be forgiven, I'm sur...Kitler-<br />New Scientist can be forgiven, I'm sure, for not taking "creationism" seriously. There are plenty of other publications which deal with the supernatural and paranormal.Zaphodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03695819392577629492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-92136601963141472652011-08-27T14:39:29.300+01:002011-08-27T14:39:29.300+01:00Science et Vie -
Another one for the rubbish pile ...Science et Vie -<br />Another one for the rubbish pile of what were once good science rags and now nothing more than propaganda leaflets writ large.Slamlanderhttp://slamlander.caselle-vpn.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-83958774666457644292011-08-27T13:37:18.459+01:002011-08-27T13:37:18.459+01:00You want my pies?
Come and take them!You want my pies?<br />Come and take them!Robert the Bikernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-7509613241270478352011-08-27T12:58:13.994+01:002011-08-27T12:58:13.994+01:00I bought a recent new scientist and got no further...I bought a recent new scientist and got no further than the editorial, which yet again pushed the false dichotomy of evolution vs creationism (from a smug pro-evolution point obviously). <br /><br />Just out of curiousity LI, have scientists ever created life in a lab through randomly combining amino protiens or whatever they say happened at the dawn of life?kitlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-26459816038438253402011-08-27T11:24:49.295+01:002011-08-27T11:24:49.295+01:00I grieve over my lost New Scientist. I don't w...I grieve over my lost New Scientist. I don't work in Science, but it's important and fascinating. <br /><br />The MSM could never be relied on to keep me informed, even in the good old days when they had journalists.<br /><br />The heavyweight science journals are too specialised, and too in-depth for my purpose. I needed NS.<br /><br />I still subscribe, in case anything important happens. But reading the thing is now infuriating, I can't trust it any more. They often mangled explanations of stuff I understand, but at least there was no control agenda before.<br /><br />ps, Leggy, I don't comment here much, cos there's little to argue with. But I remain a dedicated reader here. Live long, prosper, keep banging on!Zaphodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03695819392577629492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-2030459385393639472011-08-27T10:52:50.894+01:002011-08-27T10:52:50.894+01:00You're not the only one Underdog. This about S...You're not the only one Underdog. This about Scientific American.<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/why-i-dont-subscribe-to-scientific-american-any-more/F***W*T TW****Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07120609386466244408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-27281810664678550742011-08-27T10:27:13.235+01:002011-08-27T10:27:13.235+01:00I have just stopped a regular donation to a certai...I have just stopped a regular donation to a certain charity for similar reasons. They sent me a glossy mag four times a year telling me how wonderful they are, what great things they are doing and how if only I send them more of my hard earned cash, they can do more. The pressure I felt in order to become worthy (in their eyes) was what did it finally. They've fallen so far away from their original ethos they are barely recognisable.sixtypoundsaweekcleanernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-13018331662731927932011-08-27T10:24:21.135+01:002011-08-27T10:24:21.135+01:00Twenty-Rothmans, Heffer might be a good writer and...Twenty-Rothmans, Heffer might be a good writer and have some good ideas about liberalised economics but have a look at what he's said about drug use sometime. For my money he's as big an authoritarian prick as any in government when it comes to people being free to do what they want to their own bodies.Angry Exilehttp://angryexile.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-89367550949105601002011-08-27T10:20:42.991+01:002011-08-27T10:20:42.991+01:00I was informed yesterday by an 18 year-old that my...I was informed yesterday by an 18 year-old that my aversion to halal meat is "racism".<br /><br />I explained that Islam isn't a race, but was 'assured' that it is, and anyway, one of his friends confirmed it.<br /><br />He then said that I need to see the local mental health services to find out why I think this way. He even kindly looked up the telephone number for me and wrote it down.<br /><br />I find it unsettling that so many people are settling for this control freakery system to such an extent that if your thoughts or behaviour are not of the 'approved' nature, you are considered to have a mental illness.<br /><br />This is how political dissidents can be rounded up - claim they are mental and a danger to themselves or others, then lock them away for years.Stewart Cowanhttp://www.realstreet.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-83263248055541876152011-08-27T08:49:43.429+01:002011-08-27T08:49:43.429+01:00I used to take the Telegraph, but no longer. They ...I used to take the Telegraph, but no longer. They did away with Simon Heffer, Craig Brown and Tom Utley, and replaced them with the hand-wringing Mary Riddell, the global warming alarmist Geoffrey Lean and the vacuous Bryony Gordon, who has absolutely smashing norks but little else going for her.<br /><br />They can take their fishwrap, roll it up and transurethrally tickle their prostates with it. There are many reasons for buying it - Delingpole sometimes shows up as does Lord Tebbit. It's not good enough to justify the expenditure.<br /><br />Thank Christ for the Spectator.Twenty_Rothmansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-80753682320534300812011-08-27T06:54:23.969+01:002011-08-27T06:54:23.969+01:00I get a publication that a few years back was fair...I get a publication that a few years back was fair and even minded. Then they got rid of their entire editorial staff and brought in all new players. So now the thing has turned into a monthly rag promoting all the usual socialist agendas. And they wonder why membership is falling. Unfortunately one of my important credit cards comes through membership with them, so I can't get out of it (yet, though I am working on it). Now, I just take the thing and toss it in the recycle bin after ripping it in half each month. Rip and toss. That's all it's worth. Sounds like New Scientist has become the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com