Turns out that salt in the diet isnt nearly as deadly as some scientists have made it out to be. http://kfor.com/2013/07/09/cdc-admits-long-standing-error-there-is-no-benefit-in-reducing-salt/ Is there really such a thing as settled science?
One of the axioms of science is that it is never "settled". Science, by its very nature, is always hostage to the next observation someone makes. All scientific explanations of anything are perpetually subject to modification, extension, or other enhancement. This is the empirical world, after all.
the flintc, is rockin' yo, taxcutter..... weird to find that even the stupid sheet is changing? Dont get high sided once learning beyond belief.
Just saw this yesterday... Study linking fish oil supplements and cancer causes consumer fears http://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...ts-and-cancer-causes-consumer-fears-1.1460882
if there are any physics guys here, ask how much radiation (rem) each of us around the world have recieved since the nuclear age? ie.... there has been over 2800 detonations (testing and such), since the program began globally Would it affect cancer rates?
It depends how the radiation is contained and where it goes.. If you live in the middle of Africa, chances are you've never been exposed and so wouldn't have a higher chance of cancer from all the nuclear detonations. If you live in the Chernobyl fallout zone, chances are you were very much affected. So it's based on where you are and when. Although it is possible to be affected by fallout from very far away, if wind conditions and such are right. They say some of the Fukushima fallout made it across the pacific to North America. How much damage that will cause, I don't know. I imagine that it's possible the Japanese may be worse off than we think from Fukushima. Maybe there will be many birth defects. I'm just guessing though.
Exposure to cosmic radiation depends on your elevation. 26 mrem at sea level 35 mrem at 3,000 ft. for instance. Radiation from the ground is about 30 mrem in most of the continental U.S. Living within 50 miles of a coal-fired power plant gets you 0.04 mrem. Living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant gets you 0.01 mrem. Radiation from food is about 40 mrem. Radon (air) 228 mrem. Here is more info... http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/
fair...... ie.. the honest approach i agree with your views on the birth defects.. At hiroshima and nagasaki populous still have issues Just the increase in autism (western) (true autism; not conscious) shares there has been a mutation in the gene pool.
plants have a higher rate The lower point on the earth are ooooosually hotter (temp) but your figures share different. but can we compare, even your figures, to the dates prior to the testing spasm of nuclear detonations? i see it that the dust and particles (molecules of mass) scattered from each testing, are encircling the globe, even today. . . could, would and/or did these detonations affect cancer rates?
Here is some more info... http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/nuclearblast.html I think it all depends on one's individual exposure to external radiation. Radiation that is internalized is much more deleterious to human cells. It also depends on what type of radiation. Some types of radiation can be stopped by dead skin cells. Other types are not deterred. While it is true that radioactive particles can remain in the stratosphere for decades, most fall to the ground and not all radioactive particles have a long half-life. Strontium-90, for instance, was at a higher level in the 60's when nuclear testing was prevalent. It has dropped with the advent of test-bans and has peaked lower presumably because of illegal atmospheric testing. Miniscule radio-active particles remaining in the stratosphere for decades can be expected to very slowly dissipate back to Earth which would not significantly affect the rate of exposure. Cancer was first identified by Hippocrates (460 - 370 BC) as a tumor with veins stretched out as the legs of a crab however, it seems that the disease is much older. "The oldest known description and surgical treatment of cancer was discovered in Egypt and dates back to approximately 1600 BC. The Papyrus describes 8 cases of ulcers of the breast that were treated by cauterization, with a tool called "the fire drill." The writing says about the disease, "There is no treatment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cancer http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/nuclearblast.html
I have to disagree. Scientific laws are "settled": Conservation of mass/energy, Keppler's, Thermodynamics, Beer-Lambert, Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, Born's, Ohm's are some that come to mind.
Science changes with the times, but it's not a completely gray area. Some shades of gray are darker than others,
Sorry, but no. You are confusing principles extremely likely to be certain, with absolute certainty. For example, can you guarantee that dark matter and dark energy obey the conservation laws? Can you guarantee that Ohm's law would operate exactly the same within the magnetic field of a neutron star? But maybe the point is a bit different, as my post pointed out. Science is hostage to the next observation. You are guaranteeing that no observation violating these rules is possible under any conditions. Science can't say that.
Existence of dark matter is based, among other things, on the discrepancy of orbital velocities, ie Keppler's Law. Keppler's law is based on the conservation of energy/matter. So if DM did not obey the conservation/energy law, orbital velocities of galaxies would not match theoretical values. I think one reason the term laws exist is because if they were not always true, the system would break down. The falsification of an accepted theory will have some effect, but, for the most part, our understanding of how things work will remain relatively the same. A law is a linchpin. A law is the foundation on which physics is built. Falsify a law and the whole system collapses.
I know what a scientific law is - it's a principle that has no known exceptions under a clearly defined set of conditions. So I would seriously doubt that we'd be talking about a law being outright falsified. Newton's theory of gravity was a law until Einstein, and there are STILL no exceptions to Newton's laws under carefully defined conditions. Instead, laws get extended, modified, and enhanced to cover unexpected or untested conditions. Rotational velocities and patterns did NOT match theoretical values. As things stand, dark matter is a place-holder, something patched on to explain observations not really understood. Scientific laws, like everything in science, ultimately rest on a body of observations. They predict the outcome of the relevant set of future observations. On rare occasions, these predictions are wrong, and the laws must be modified. Ah, I suspect the problem is semantic. Laws are not "always" true, they are true under all conditions yet examined. In this sense, they are "always true" (so far as we know) under those conditions. But you simply cannot say that those laws will apply precisely under unknown conditions. Well, I suppose you CAN say that. Newton said that.
That means that the rotation (mass curve) identified by the Hubble telescope, does not, nor ever has matched the physics. hence the 'creation' of a new 'dark matter/energy' that is supposed to be the cause. ie.... they had to invent a new model, based on the error of the physics but few know that. Simply put, the 1st law of thermodynamics, makes the 2LoT moot. The true DM is matter that is not emitting 'light' and the DARK energy, is light that is not visible. For example..... all them asteroid/meteors (not emitting) is dark and all that space out there is full of energy. The best concept to remember: there is no perfect vacuum (complete void) between any 2 points in time (there is no empty space, it cannot exist) conservation is solid but the 2nd law, is more like a 'guideline' and to be repealed to the pirates code Sorry. A complete paradigm shift is unfolding in which 'energy' itself is em (light) in one wavelength or another (all cases). Mass is energy affixed in time. I am the idiot that has the math (theorem), and have been combining the disciplines for the last 30yrs, just to make sure. ie... you're getting it first hand put on a jacket and you break the 2nd law. case closed!
No law is ever settled, be it in the justice system, or scientific fields....as new conditions arise and new discoveries made existing law is adapted accordingly. Murder is against the law, but manslaughter created for accidental killings. Gravity is law, but aspects of physics have expanded upon it. Progress is often defined as change.
That bold is true but of humility, there is more to see. Nature emergent property words themselves, evolve To use the second law (2LoT), is to ignor the cause Just say it: to ignor and define the set (conditions) For example: 'heat' is not a property of nature (a force) but actually the energy (light) is resonating upon mass and we measure the difference of the set evironment. Nothing about the cause (the light) in 2LoT usage. The concept that planck imposed what that 'direction'. nature is practically opposite; evolving (growing) Not to confuse the concept of an 'expanding universe' as that condition cannot be known as it assumes a 'direction'. Actually, it is the galaxy arms, the stars within are often moving faster than the concept of a central force (gravity) based on the mass (kinetic included), do not meet the physics. Mercury's orbit has no such problem, rather it is an evolving procession based on the increasing energy (light) captured from the sun (entanglements). It aint a dark mass, energy but the energy (light) shared between mass is causing the increasing entanglements (gravity itself). That is what is occuring and I am sharing in the first. and the definitions given. Not necessarily a law of nature but purely a guideline. Exactly Or in this case, a complete paradigm shift. and newton had no idea what gravity was, but set the parameters to measure a given definition (the set). Remember knowledge evolves by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' and see the next horizon ...... sooner. ie..... note the 'progression' of even that statement and its meaning?
