UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on November 19, 2018, 08:05:03 PM
-
In her book Kate McCann says she relaxed a little when she watched the video of Grime's dogs. The reason she gave was;
This was not what I would call an exact science [madeleine]
I wonder what she meant? Assuming she understood the different kinds of science, would she know what an exact science is? As a mathematician I think she did, considering they are also called the exact mathematical sciences.
So searching with dogs isn't an exact science, but nether is medicine. It's an applied science.
Then we have 'formal' sciences, which are not sciences in the way exact sciences are. Statistics is an example of a formal science.
The social sciences include politics and economics. They concentrate on social systems.
Behavioural science studies human behaviour and tries to generalise about all humans or groups. Psychology is a behavioural science.
So when people say cadaver dogs should be, or have been, scientifically tested they are referring to a word with many meanings and standards of proof. Using the word 'science' means nothing concrete in my opinion because it has many meanings. It sounds good, but what does it mean in relation to testing the work of sniffer dogs?
158
-
I read they are trying to make a machine that will will analyse gas to mimic a cadaver dog.
I have feeling once they get the machine running they will find that the decision a dog makes before alerting is a lot more complex.
We have a program where they follow intercepts at the border. They have testing kits for the rapid identification for certain drugs. Even these test kits are unlikely to be 100% accurate.
A cadaver dog is being asked to go one step further in that it is not asked to find a cadaver but a human cadaver.
So what assessment does the dog make? As I have said before it can't be based on either cadaverine or putrescine alone for cadavers of all species IMO would produce these chemicals.
-
It will be interesting to see how they manage to calibrate the instrument.
If it shows positive n the absence of human remains, will it be believed or will it be claimed to be incredibly unreliable ? 8)-)))
-
I think medicine is more of an exact science than you think... All drugs are rigourously tested.... Doctors dont just say I've tested this drug myself and it works... Everything is open and supported by data. The, way the dogs are tested is not open and supported by no data... Its based on opinion...and according to you we cannot question that opinion... Science is based on facts....that can be examined and questioned..
-
I think medicine is more of an exact science than you think... All drugs are rigourously tested.... Doctors dont just say I've tested this drug myself and it works... Everything is open and supported by data. The, way the dogs are tested is not open and supported by no data... Its based on opinion...and according to you we cannot question that opinion... Science is based on facts....that can be examined and questioned..
I'm not sure those that took Thalidomide would agree with your first part.
-
I'm not sure those that took Thalidomide would agree with your first part.
Then you would need to read the scientific papers, which validated thalidomide.... And I'm sure the fault would be found..
Off hand thalidomide was licensed as an antiemetic.. Had it been tested on pregnant women... Obviously not
Your post supports the need for proper scientific testing
-
In her book Kate McCann says she relaxed a little when she watched the video of Grime's dogs. The reason she gave was;
This was not what I would call an exact science [madeleine]
I wonder what she meant? Assuming she understood the different kinds of science, would she know what an exact science is? As a mathematician I think she did, considering they are also called the exact mathematical sciences.
So searching with dogs isn't an exact science, but nether is medicine. It's an applied science.
Then we have 'formal' sciences, which are not sciences in the way exact sciences are. Statistics is an example of a formal science.
The social sciences include politics and economics. They concentrate on social systems.
Behavioural science studies human behaviour and tries to generalise about all humans or groups. Psychology is a behavioural science.
So when people say cadaver dogs should be, or have been, scientifically tested they are referring to a word with many meanings and standards of proof. Using the word 'science' means nothing concrete in my opinion because it has many meanings. It sounds good, but what does it mean in relation to testing the work of sniffer dogs?
It’s a turn of phrase isn’t it? To describe something that clearly is open to interpretation and unverifiable.
-
I think medicine is more of an exact science than you think... All drugs are rigourously tested.... Doctors dont just say I've tested this drug myself and it works... Everything is open and supported by data. The, way the dogs are tested is not open and supported by no data... Its based on opinion...and according to you we cannot question that opinion... Science is based on facts....that can be examined and questioned..
Drugs are statistically tested, not proved to work as designed.
-
Drugs are statistically tested, not proved to work as designed.
They are statistically tested to prove they work... You cannot contradict that
-
I think medicine is more of an exact science than you think... All drugs are rigourously tested.... Doctors dont just say I've tested this drug myself and it works... Everything is open and supported by data. The, way the dogs are tested is not open and supported by no data... Its based on opinion...and according to you we cannot question that opinion... Science is based on facts....that can be examined and questioned..
Unless you can present a case by using cites, your opinion isn't actually relevant. This is another study from NCBI, where the dog handlers were tested;
Medicine, however, is not an exact science. It is an applied science, and its practice is an art.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/
-
Unless you can present a case by using cites, your opinion isn't actually relevant. This is another study from NCBI, where the dog handlers were tested;
Medicine, however, is not an exact science. It is an applied science, and its practice is an art.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/
Medicine is a science backed by statistical proof
-
They are statistically tested to prove they work...
The focus could be too narrow in that they miss side effects. But you would think a drug being used to control morning sickness would be checked that it didn't cause fetal defects.
-
Unless you can present a case by using cites, your opinion isn't actually relevant. This is another study from NCBI, where the dog handlers were tested;
Medicine, however, is not an exact science. It is an applied science, and its practice is an art.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/
What was the point of linking to that article?
-
The focus could be too narrow in that they miss side effects. But you would think a drug being used to control morning sickness would be checked that it didn't cause fetal defects.
The drug was tested extensively on animals where it didn't cause defects
-
The drug was tested extensively on animals where it didn't cause defects
OK
-
They are statistically tested to prove they work... You cannot contradict that
Statistics is a formal science. As such it's not an exact science, It uses samples and then generalises from the results. So if a certain number of people are tested and they are unharmed, it's assumed that no-one will be harmed. If it were an exact science no drugs would need to be withdrawn when they caused harm to those who differed from the ones tested.
-
What was the point of linking to that article?
To show that medicine isn't an exact science. The exact sciences are the ones which produce laws; physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and geology are exact sciences.
-
To show that medicine isn't an exact science. The exact sciences are the ones which produce laws; physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and geology are exact sciences.
No one has said medicine is an exact science.... What's your point
-
To show that medicine isn't an exact science. The exact sciences are the ones which produce laws; physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and geology are exact sciences.
Then Dr Healey is quite correct to say that cadaver dog alerts are not an exact science. Next!
-
I think medicine is more of an exact science than you think... All drugs are rigourously tested.... Doctors dont just say I've tested this drug myself and it works... Everything is open and supported by data. The, way the dogs are tested is not open and supported by no data... Its based on opinion...and according to you we cannot question that opinion... Science is based on facts....that can be examined and questioned..
Drugs have unexpected effects too. People diagnosed with and treated for Parkinson's disease sometimes have drug induced Parkinson's. It can be cured simply by stopping taking the drug which is causing it. Testing doesn't expose such side effects, which develop over time. Taking drugs may be necessary, but it's always risky too, in my opinion.
-
Drugs have unexpected effects too. People diagnosed with and treated for Parkinson's disease sometimes have drug induced Parkinson's. It can be cured simply by stopping taking the drug which is causing it. Testing doesn't expose such side effects, which develop over time. Taking drugs may be necessary, but it's always risky too, in my opinion.
What's your point.... We all know drugs can have side effects
-
Drugs have unexpected effects too. People diagnosed with and treated for Parkinson's disease sometimes have drug induced Parkinson's. It can be cured simply by stopping taking the drug which is causing it. Testing doesn't expose such side effects, which develop over time. Taking drugs may be necessary, but it's always risky too, in my opinion.
Is this thread an attempt by you to belittle the medical profession?
-
Then Dr Healey is quite correct to say that cadaver dog alerts are not an exact science. Next!
She was, but why should that allow her to relax? It has never been claimed that cadaver dog alerts were an exact science, neither has it ever aspired to be an exact science. It's like pointing out that a train is not a bus. Nobody ever said it was.
-
She was, but why should that allow her to relax? It has never been claimed that cadaver dog alerts were an exact science, neither has it ever aspired to be an exact science. It's like pointing out that a train is not a bus. Nobody ever said it was.
It would allow her to relax because she realised it wasn't an exact science..... She had been told the dogs had alerted to cadaver odour... She knew from the video the alertsvwere questionable
-
She was, but why should that allow her to relax? It has never been claimed that cadaver dog alerts were an exact science, neither has it ever aspired to be an exact science. It's like pointing out that a train is not a bus. Nobody ever said it was.
She can do what she likes can’t she? If she is reassured by watching the dog videos that they look incredibly imprecise and inexact, who are you to tell her she shouldn’t be allowed to form this view?
-
Is this thread an attempt by you to belittle the medical profession?
No. It's an attempt to demonstrate that criticising police dogs because they're not ;scientifically' tested is nonsense. Firstly, there are many different types of science. Some, like the exact sciences, can discover certainties. Others, like behavioural science, can't. They can give insights, but they can't discover certainties.
Testing living beings is much more difficult than testing inanimate objects. Living beings think, decide and choose.They have wants and needs and relationships. All these things are personal, not universal and each living being will react differently. That's why testing 18 handlers and their dogs reveals insights only about those handlers and their dogs. Another group could react to the test completely differently.
-
No. It's an attempt to demonstrate that criticising police dogs because they're not ;scientifically' tested is nonsense. Firstly, there are many different types of science. Some, like the exact sciences, can discover certainties. Others, like behavioural science, can't. They can give insights, but they can't discover certainties.
Testing living beings is much more difficult than testing inanimate objects. Living beings think, decide and choose.They have wants and needs and relationships. All these things are personal, not universal and each living being will react differently. That's why testing 18 handlers and their dogs reveals insights only about those handlers and their dogs. Another group could react to the test completely differently.
You’ve just highlighted precisely why cadaver dog alerts are so unreliable. Unless the dogs and their handlers have been independently assessed and tested their alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence.
-
You’ve just highlighted precisely why cadaver dog alerts are so unreliable. Unless the dogs and their handlers have been independently assessed and tested their alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence.
Precisely
-
She can do what she likes can’t she? If she is reassured by watching the dog videos that they look incredibly imprecise and inexact, who are you to tell her she shouldn’t be allowed to form this view?
Uninformed people bandy the word 'science' around incorrectly. Kate McCann isn't uninformed. In my opinion she knew very well that was using a straw man argument. It's like me relaxing because a train isn't a bus. Nobody ever said it was.
-
Uninformed people bandy the word 'science' around incorrectly. Kate McCann isn't uninformed. In my opinion she knew very well that was using a straw man argument. It's like me relaxing because a train isn't a bus. Nobody ever said it was.
Another pointless thread... You seem to be ignoring the facts... Kate, was told the dogs had detected cadaver odour in the apartment... That would have been a shock... Seeing the digs in action put her mind at rest... It really is, quite obvious
-
You’ve just highlighted precisely why cadaver dog alerts are so unreliable. Unless the dogs and their handlers have been independently assessed and tested their alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence.
Cadaver dogs and their handlers are independently assessed and tested regularly. That's how they get a licence to work. They also have a track record showing how successful they have been. It's these records which matter when judging a team. Some teams may be unreliable, others aren't. That's why sweeping statements such as 'cadaver dog alerts are unreliable' are nonsense.
-
Uninformed people bandy the word 'science' around incorrectly. Kate McCann isn't uninformed. In my opinion she knew very well that was using a straw man argument. It's like me relaxing because a train isn't a bus. Nobody ever said it was.
Except she wasn’t. She was 100% correct. Cadaver dog alerts ARE NOT an exact science.
-
Cadaver dogs and their handlers are independently assessed and tested regularly. That's how they get a licence to work. They also have a track record showing how successful they have been. It's these records which matter when judging a team. Some teams may be unreliable, others aren't. That's why sweeping statements such as 'cadaver dog alerts are unreliable' are nonsense.
1) Martin Grime’s dogs were out of licence when taken to PdL 2) who grants the licence anyway and 3) who conferred on Eddie the title of ENHANCED victim recovery dog?
-
Cadaver dogs and their handlers are independently assessed and tested regularly. That's how they get a licence to work. They also have a track record showing how successful they have been. It's these records which matter when judging a team. Some teams may be unreliable, others aren't. That's why sweeping statements such as 'cadaver dog alerts are unreliable' are nonsense.
There does not seem to be any record of eddies assessments which we were told was anectdotal... That isn't science imo.
-
Phew. I thought I had woken up to a pleasant discussion. Not likely, I know. But I needn't have worried.
However, it was interesting. I have now got some idea of what an exact science is.
-
Another pointless thread... You seem to be ignoring the facts... Kate, was told the dogs had detected cadaver odour in the apartment... That would have been a shock... Seeing the digs in action put her mind at rest... It really is, quite obvious
She says her mind was put at rest because the dog alerts weren't an exact science. We can dismiss that reason because no-one claimed it was, so what was the real reason she relaxed? Perhaps the British police had helped, Bob Small, for example;
He explained that the British police regarded the use of sniffer dogs as intelligence rather than evidence, and he was perplexed at the apparent fixation of the PJ on the idea that Madeleine had died in the apartment. He told Gerry he thought they’d get a shock when the forensic results came back. [madeleine]
-
Phew. I thought I had woken up to a pleasant discussion. Not likely, I know. But I needn't have worried.
However, it was interesting. I have now got some idea of what an exact science is.
Me too!
-
There does not seem to be any record of eddies assessments which we were told was anectdotal... That isn't science imo.
Of course it's not science, any more than a C.V. is science. Criticising sniffer dogs for not being scientific, or scientifically tested is a straw man argument because they have never claimed to be scientific. .
-
Of course it's not science, any more than a C.V. is science. Criticising sniffer dogs for not being scientific, or scientifically tested is a straw man argument because they have never claimed to be scientific. .
The only problem with this is that too much importance can be placed on a Sniff or a Bark.
-
The only problem with this is that too much importance can be placed on a Sniff or a Bark.
I agree that some people have placed too much importance on them. Equally others have placed too little importance on them. In my opinion they can be neither relied on or dismissed.
-
I agree that some people have placed too much importance on them. Equally others have placed too little importance on them. In my opinion they can be neither relied on or dismissed.
Would you agree that one of those who placed too much importance on them was Amaral who used this "evidence" to conclude that Madeleine died in the apartment and that her parents disposed of her body?
-
I agree that some people have placed too much importance on them. Equally others have placed too little importance on them. In my opinion they can be neither relied on or dismissed.
Si you have started another dog thread...... At least you have admitted the alerts cannot be relied upon
-
Si you have started another dog thread...... At least you have admitted the alerts cannot be relied upon
This thread is related to the dog alerts because of people's mistaken beliefs that 'science' can somehow provide evidence on the reliability or unreliability of cadaver dogs. It can't, because handlers, dogs and situations differ.
Now it's your turn to admit they can't be dismissed. The alerts can't be relied on as hard evidence, but they are intelligence and so have to be considered.
-
Except she wasn’t. She was 100% correct. Cadaver dog alerts ARE NOT an exact science. The end.
She was wrong to use that as a reason for dismissing them though.
-
This thread is related to the dog alerts because of people's mistaken beliefs that 'science' can somehow provide evidence on the reliability or unreliability of cadaver dogs. It can't, because handlers, dogs and situations differ.
Now it's your turn to admit they can't be dismissed. The alerts can't be relied on as hard evidence, but they are intelligence and so have to be considered.
Science could provide a guide to reliability if proper scientific tests, were carried out....
Homeopaths claim they have evidence to show homeopathy works... Science has shown it doesn't.... Science can test and verify non scientific principles...
People claim esp is real... Science has shown it isnt
-
She was wrong to use that as a reason for dismissing them though.
No she wasnt... It seems now it's acceptable to state opinion as fact
-
Science could provide a guide to reliability if proper scientific tests, were carried out....
Homeopaths claim they have evidence to show homeopathy works... Science has shown it doesn't.... Science can test and verify non scientific principles...
People claim esp is real... Science has shown it isnt
What is a 'proper scientific test'?
-
What is a 'proper scientific test'?
There are lots of different tests depending on what's being tested... In the case of the dogs it would be necessary to decide what questions yo wanted answerred and design a, test that answerred the questions....
-
No she wasnt... It seems now it's acceptable to state opinion as fact
Yes she was. It was a straw man argument. It's like me saying behaviourism isn't an exact science. I know it's not and so do the behaviourists, so it's an irrelevant comparison.
-
What is a 'proper scientific test'?
What seems to be being postulated here is that a "proper" scientific test is one where a nice convenient little box is established around it such that there are no unknown variables and all the conditions of all the variables may be changed independently of each other and recorded.
Unfortunately the luxury of complete knowledge is not always afforded in the real world, as variables, outside the nice little box, exist ad infinitum.
Empirical and iterative tests are perfectly acceptable.
Neither mechanics nor fluid dynamics are exact sciences so what?
-
There are lots of different tests depending on what's being tested... In the case of the dogs it would be necessary to decide what questions yo wanted answerred and design a, test that answerred the questions....
I don't think you've grasped that 'science' can't always provide answers. Even worse, it can provide wrong answers. In my opinion the concentration on smoking has distracted attention from the harm caused by traffic pollution, which is only now being acknowledged.
-
I don't think you've grasped that 'science' can't always provide answers. Even worse, it can provide wrong answers. In my opinion the concentration on smoking has distracted attention from the harm caused by traffic pollution, which is only now being acknowledged.
Science can test things... Such as the dogs.... It's very good at testing things.... Not perfect.... And it doesn't claim to be perfect
As you are a smoker I'm not surprise you defend it.... Prof Richard Doll proved the connection using epidemiolgy... It took 20 years
-
I don't think you've grasped that 'science' can't always provide answers. Even worse, it can provide wrong answers. In my opinion the concentration on smoking has distracted attention from the harm caused by traffic pollution, which is only now being acknowledged.
Most informed people know that science can't provide all the answers.
-
If a member feels that they have been subjected to Goading, quoting the goading comment does not help me to correct that, should I feel there is a need.
-
Science can test things... Such as the dogs.... It's very good at testing things.... Not perfect.... And it doesn't claim to be perfect
As you are a smoker I'm not surprise you defend it.... Prof Richard Doll proved the connection using epidemiolgy... It took 20 years
OK then let's take it as a given that "sniffer" dogs can be tested scientifically. Will you please delineate your preferred testing regime for the forum to comment on?
-
OK then let's take it as a given that "sniffer" dogs can be tested scientifically. Will you please delineate your preferred testing regime for the forum to comment on?
What's the point... If posters haven't managed to grasp I have an in depth knowledge of science and scientific method they are hardly likely to understand how a scientific test is carried out
-
What's the point... If posters haven't managed to grasp I have an in depth knowledge of science and scientific method they are hardly likely to understand how a scientific test is carried out
So you are now an expert on cadaver dogs as well as your many other accomplishments then Davel?
-
So you are now an expert on cadaver dogs as well as your many other accomplishments then Davel?
Cite for me claiming to be an expert on cadaver dogs
-
Cite for me claiming to be an expert on cadaver dogs
No need as it was a question.
-
No need as it was a question.
It's a rather stupid question to ask if it's something I've never claimed
-
What's the point... If posters haven't managed to grasp I have an in depth knowledge of science and scientific method they are hardly likely to understand how a scientific test is carried out
In my opinion someone who claims to have an in depth knowledge of a subject should be aware of the problems which arise when the subject to be studied is a human or dog rather than an inanimate object. If you could explain what those problems might be you might convince people that you are as knowledgeable as you claim. I could claim to be a nuclear physicist but I wouldn't expect people to just take my word for it.
-
In my opinion someone who claims to have an in depth knowledge of a subject should be aware of the problems which arise when the subject to be studied is a human or dog rather than an inanimate object. If you could explain what those problems might be you might convince people that you are as knowledgeable as you claim. I could claim to be a nuclear physicist but I wouldn't expect people to just take my word for it.
So you don't think it's possible to design any studies to test the dogs abilities... We have recently seen some...
As for convincing anyone... I'm not really interested
-
If I said “global warming is not an exact science “ would I be wrong to say it because it was a strawman, because I already knew it wasn’t and so too do the scientists?
-
So you don't think it's possible to design any studies to test the dogs abilities... We have recently seen some...
Ya. But some don't like the results.
Or have I lost the plot again?
-
Science can test things... Such as the dogs.... It's very good at testing things.... Not perfect.... And it doesn't claim to be perfect
Your post is goading Re what I have and haven't grasped Re science.... I can pretty much guarantee I have a, far better understanding of science than you..
As you are a smoker I'm not surprise you defend it.... Prof Richard Doll proved the connection using epidemiolgy... It took 20 years
I wasn't intending to goad. In my opinion your constant references to 'science' could be seen as goading. You talk about it as if everyone knows what it is. It's not so simple though as there are different kinds of science. You talk about scientific method or methodology in the same way, and there are many variations in that too.
What Doll did was completely rule out the possible effects of traffic and industrial pollution on people's health, despite the fact that the observed rise in cases of lung cancer matched a rise in such pollutants. I don't know what causes lung cancer, but if it's traffic pollution and not smoking Doll is one of the reasons why the effects of pollution has been largely ignored for 50 plus years.
-
What's the point... If posters haven't managed to grasp I have an in depth knowledge of science and scientific method they are hardly likely to understand how a scientific test is carried out
We were rather hoping that we could study at the feet of a master and learn how he would design a repeatable and reliable testing regime for "sniffer" dogs.
-
Ya. But some don't like the results.
Or have I lost the plot again?
For me, it's more a matter of whether the test results can be used to make statements about all dogs and their handlers. It;s a fact that all deciduous trees drop their leaves annually. It has yest to be shown that all cadaver dogs are unreliable.
-
So you don't think it's possible to design any studies to test the dogs abilities... We have recently seen some...
As for convincing anyone... I'm not really interested
I didn't say it wasn't possible to test dogs, I said it wasn't possible to apply the results to all dogs.
In my opinion you have demonstrated that you like to claim to be knowledgeable, but are unable to support your claims.
-
I wasn't intending to goad. In my opinion your constant references to 'science' could be seen as goading. You talk about it as if everyone knows what it is. It's not so simple though as there are different kinds of science. You talk about scientific method or methodology in the same way, and there are many variations in that too.
What Doll did was completely rule out the possible effects of traffic and industrial pollution on people's health, despite the fact that the observed rise in cases of lung cancer matched a rise in such pollutants. I don't know what causes lung cancer, but if it's traffic pollution and not smoking Doll is one of the reasons why the effects of pollution has been largely ignored for 50 plus years.
You are rejecting the conclusions of scientists who presumably know a thing or two about the subject because...?
-
Kate McCann was obviously relieved that the dog alerts couldn't be viewed as an exact science and were merely suggestive in the absence of other forensic evidence. Question is, if she was as innocent as she insists then why bother to ridicule the dogs?
What were the parents so afraid of that they felt they needed to go to such bother to discredit the CSI and EVRD?
-
Kate McCann was obviously relieved that the dog alerts couldn't be viewed as an exact science. Question is, if she was as innocent as she insists then why bother to ridicule the dogs? What were the parents so afraid of that they had to go to the bother of attempting to discredit the CSI and EVRD?
Simy because the want to believe Maddie is, still alive
They are not discrediting the digs... They are exposing the truth
-
Kate McCann was obviously relieved that the dog alerts couldn't be viewed as an exact science. Question is, if she was as innocent as she insists then why bother to ridicule the dogs? What were the parents so afraid of that they had to go to the bother of attempting to discredit the CSI and EVRD?
What were they afraid of?
-
I didn't say it wasn't possible to test dogs, I said it wasn't possible to apply the results to all dogs.
In my opinion you have demonstrated that you like to claim to be knowledgeable, but are unable to support your claims.
I've never suggested the results be, applied to all dogs
-
I wasn't intending to goad. In my opinion your constant references to 'science' could be seen as goading. You talk about it as if everyone knows what it is. It's not so simple though as there are different kinds of science. You talk about scientific method or methodology in the same way, and there are many variations in that too.
What Doll did was completely rule out the possible effects of traffic and industrial pollution on people's health, despite the fact that the observed rise in cases of lung cancer matched a rise in such pollutants. I don't know what causes lung cancer, but if it's traffic pollution and not smoking Doll is one of the reasons why the effects of pollution has been largely ignored for 50 plus years.
It's pretty obvious why I keep referring to science when you consider the thread title.
You think you know better than Doll... His research is there still for, anyone to contradict... No one does although the tobacco companies have a good go.... Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer..... Air pollution plays a much smaller part
Quote
Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer.21 Aug 2018
-
What were they afraid of?
Yes, what were they afraid of if they were innocent and Maddie didn't die in 5a?
-
Yes, what were they afraid of if they were innocent and Maddie didn't die in 5a?
I have no idea.
That is why I asked.
-
Yes, what were they afraid of if they were innocent and Maddie didn't die in 5a?
Being stitched up by numbskulls who believe that “dogs don’t lie” probably.
-
It's pretty obvious why I keep referring to science when you consider the thread title.
You think you know better than Doll... His research is there still for, anyone to contradict... No one does although the tobacco companies have a good go.... Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer..... Air pollution plays a much smaller part
Quote
Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer.21 Aug 2018
I wasn't referring to this thread, which I started to explore the meaning of science because it keeps being mentioned elsewhere, often by you. Given the chance to discuss science in depth, however, you seem strangely reluctant to elaborate and share your alleged in depth knowledge. That's a pity because you have missed your chance to demonstrate your alleged expertise.
As to air pollution v smoking, the tide is turning, my friend.
Air Pollution Is Deadlier Than Smoking Or War
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/11/20/report-air-pollution-is-deadlier-than-smoking-or-war-infographic/
-
I wasn't referring to this thread, which I started to explore the meaning of science because it keeps being mentioned elsewhere, often by you. Given the chance to discuss science in depth, however, you seem strangely reluctant to elaborate and share your alleged in depth knowledge. That's a pity because you have missed your chance to demonstrate your alleged expertise.
As to air pollution v smoking, the tide is turning, my friend.
Air Pollution Is Deadlier Than Smoking Or War
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/11/20/report-air-pollution-is-deadlier-than-smoking-or-war-infographic/
I see two errors in your argument
First your article does not mention lung cancer... It gives no data on deaths from lung cancer due to air pollution...
Secondly you say the tide is turning... But what's causing tnat
Less people in the UK.. I would think..smoke now than they did 40 years ago.... But air pollution may well be far worse
-
I wasn't referring to this thread, which I started to explore the meaning of science because it keeps being mentioned elsewhere, often by you. Given the chance to discuss science in depth, however, you seem strangely reluctant to elaborate and share your alleged in depth knowledge. That's a pity because you have missed your chance to demonstrate your alleged expertise.
As to air pollution v smoking, the tide is turning, my friend.
Air Pollution Is Deadlier Than Smoking Or War
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/11/20/report-air-pollution-is-deadlier-than-smoking-or-war-infographic/
Do you seriously dispute that smoking causes lung cancer? Has any scientist EVER stated that smoking is the sole cause of lung cancer?
-
I see two errors in your argument
First your article does not mention lung cancer... It gives no data on deaths from lung cancer due to air pollution...
Secondly you say the tide is turning... But what's causing tnat
Less people in the UK.. I would think..smoke now than they did 40 years ago.... But air pollution may well be far worse
The problem with these studies is that they find associations. An association is not a cause. I remember in the 1990's that smoking was very popular in China but lung cancer rates were low. It was only in 1995 that the Chinese government began to allow private ownership of cars. Coincidentally lung cancer rates have increased, and pollution is seen as being associated with it.
-
The problem with these studies is that they find associations. An association is not a cause. I remember in the 1990's that smoking was very popular in China but lung cancer rates were low. It was only in 1995 that the Chinese government began to allow private ownership of cars. Coincidentally lung cancer rates have increased, and pollution is seen as being associated with it.
Can I ask you: why are you prepared to believe that breathing in pollutants in the air cause cancer, but that breathing in toxins found in cigarettes does not?
https://www.cancer.ie/reduce-your-risk/smoking/health-risks/whats-in-cigarettes#sthash.b0jP8cTt.dpbs
-
Can I ask you: why are you prepared to believe that breathing in pollutants in the air cause cancer, but that breathing in toxins found in cigarettes does not?
https://www.cancer.ie/reduce-your-risk/smoking/health-risks/whats-in-cigarettes#sthash.b0jP8cTt.dpbs
Maybe the catalysts for lung cancer in smokers is air pollutants.
-
Can I ask you: why are you prepared to believe that breathing in pollutants in the air cause cancer, but that breathing in toxins found in cigarettes does not?
https://www.cancer.ie/reduce-your-risk/smoking/health-risks/whats-in-cigarettes#sthash.b0jP8cTt.dpbs
I don't know why people get lung cancer but I know smoking increased in the UK after 1919, as did lung cancer; hence Doll's study. He concentrated on smoking and ignored traffic which had increased at the same time as smoking. Why he did that I don't know but I think neither is good for people.
-
The problem with these studies is that they find associations. An association is not a cause. I remember in the 1990's that smoking was very popular in China but lung cancer rates were low. It was only in 1995 that the Chinese government began to allow private ownership of cars. Coincidentally lung cancer rates have increased, and pollution is seen as being associated with it.
You are absolutely wrong in your assertions. First the high rate of smoking in China would not see a rise in lung cancer until 20 to 25 years later.. You contradict Doll yet the tobacco companies haven't been able to dispute his figures ....don't you think they would if they could.
We are told we, can't criticise Grime..... because he's the expert.... Do you realise how foolish your criticism of Dolls research makes you look
-
Examining the Lisa Lit study in more detail, the aim was to evaluate the handlers, not the dogs;
this study was not evaluating abilities of these detection dogs to detect their target scents. Because all dogs were certified, many with confirmed deployment finds their ability to correctly locate target scent was considered to be previously established.
The present study attempted to determine whether handler beliefs of target scent location would affect outcomes in scent detection dog searches.
In conclusion, these findings confirm that handler beliefs affect working dog outcomes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
-
Examining the Lisa Lit study in more detail, the aim was to evaluate the handlers, not the dogs;
this study was not evaluating abilities of these detection dogs to detect their target scents. Because all dogs were certified, many with confirmed deployment finds their ability to correctly locate target scent was considered to be previously established.
The present study attempted to determine whether handler beliefs of target scent location would affect outcomes in scent detection dog searches.
In conclusion, these findings confirm that handler beliefs affect working dog outcomes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
As I understand the dogs alerted.
The limited tests show that the digs can detect target scent.... What we don't know is every alert to target scent.... This test suggests not imo.
-
I don't know why people get lung cancer but I know smoking increased in the UK after 1919, as did lung cancer; hence Doll's study. He concentrated on smoking and ignored traffic which had increased at the same time as smoking. Why he did that I don't know but I think neither is good for people.
Are you a scientist? I thought we were supposed to defer to the experts and their greater knowledge, yet you are a sceptic about the link between smoking and cancer. How odd.
-
You are absolutely wrong in your assertions. First the high rate of smoking in China would not see a rise in lung cancer until 20 to 25 years later.. You contradict Doll yet the tobacco companies haven't been able to dispute his figures ....don't you think they would if they could.
We are told we, can't criticise Grime..... because he's the expert.... Do you realise how foolish your criticism of Dolls research makes you look
I would say that it's foolish to claim expertise in a subject and then be unable or unwilling to share that knowledge.
It doesn't take any expertise to notice that a significant variable was ignored by Doll. Anyone can see that it was ignored and given the growing admission of the dangers of traffic pollution to health it's obvious that it shouldn't have been excluded.
There's no 'handbook of correct procedures when carrying out dog searches' which Grime's critics can point to when accusing him of doing it wrong. No-one in his field has commented adversely on his methods. Those criticising Grime have only their own opinions to offer. The opinions of people who know nothing about working dogs have no value.
-
As I understand the dogs alerted.
The limited tests show that the digs can detect target scent.... What we don't know is every alert to target scent.... This test suggests not
What actually happened was that the handlers reported that the dogs alerted. What didn't happen was any independent confirmation that the dogs did indeed alert. The study organisers said;
There are two possible explanations for the large number of false alerts identified by handlers. Either (1) handlers were erroneously calling alerts on locations at which they believed target scent was located or (2) handler belief that scent was present affected their dogs’ alerting behavior so that dogs were alerting at locations indicated by handlers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
So either the dogs didn't really alert or they alerted because the handlers influenced them. It's the handler's who were shown to be unreliable, not the dogs.
-
I would say that it's foolish to claim expertise in a subject and then be unable or unwilling to share that knowledge.
It doesn't take any expertise to notice that a significant variable was ignored by Doll. Anyone can see that it was ignored and given the growing admission of the dangers of traffic pollution to health it's obvious that it shouldn't have been excluded.
There's no 'handbook of correct procedures when carrying out dog searches' which Grime's critics can point to when accusing him of doing it wrong. No-one in his field has commented adversely on his methods. Those criticising Grime have only their own opinions to offer. The opinions of people who know nothing about working dogs have no value.
Cite that Doll ignored the effects of air pollution..
So once again you criticise Doll but reject any criticism of Grime..
The alerts have no evidential value because there is no evidence that supports their validity....if Grime wants them taken seriously by the courts he needs to arrange some proper scientific research
-
Are you a scientist? I thought we were supposed to defer to the experts and their greater knowledge, yet you are a sceptic about the link between smoking and cancer. How odd.
I'm not a scientist and I don't need to be; the information is available to be found;
Outdoor air pollution is an increasingly important risk factor for lung cancer among former and never-smokers. Though the global prevalence of smoking has decreased in recent decades, lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death......
There is an urgent need to not only raise awareness of air pollution as a cause of lung cancer, but to explore how public health control strategies for tobacco might be applied to control of air pollution......
The increasing lung cancer risk for nonsmokers posed by outdoor air pollution shows that smoking bans do not truly make cities “smoke free” or prevent all health harm from breathing smoke-polluted air.
https://medium.com/vital-strategies/breathing-smoke-in-the-city-air-pollution-and-lung-cancer-c4436f3f634c
-
I'm not a scientist and I don't need to be; the information is available to be found;
Outdoor air pollution is an increasingly important risk factor for lung cancer among former and never-smokers. Though the global prevalence of smoking has decreased in recent decades, lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death......
There is an urgent need to not only raise awareness of air pollution as a cause of lung cancer, but to explore how public health control strategies for tobacco might be applied to control of air pollution......
The increasing lung cancer risk for nonsmokers posed by outdoor air pollution shows that smoking bans do not truly make cities “smoke free” or prevent all health harm from breathing smoke-polluted air.
https://medium.com/vital-strategies/breathing-smoke-in-the-city-air-pollution-and-lung-cancer-c4436f3f634c
Do you accept that Doll showed conclusively that Smoking causes Lung cancer...
If you say he ignored air pollution you need to provide a cite
Anyone can develop lung cancer, but around 90% of cases occur in people who smoke or who used to smoke. Your risk of getting lung cancer increases with the number of cigarettes you’ve smoked and the number of years you’ve been a smoker. If you stop smoking, the risk gets lower over time – after 10 years, your risk of lung cancer falls to half that of a smoker.
www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/lung-cancer/causes
-
Cite that Doll ignored the effects of air pollution..
So once again you criticise Doll but reject any criticism of Grime..
The alerts have no evidential value because there is no evidence that supports their validity....if Grime wants them taken seriously by the courts he needs to arrange some proper scientific research
He mentions two possible causes of lung cancer; air pollution and smoking. He even acknowledges that both have increased, along with the increase in lung cancer. Then he concentrates on smoking for some reason.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/2/4682/739.extract.jpg
-
He mentions two possible causes of lung cancer; air pollution and smoking. He even acknowledges that both have increased, along with the increase in lung cancer. Then he concentrates on smoking for some reason.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/2/4682/739.extract.jpg
you have shown he considered it...you have not shown he ignored it...my cite that 90% of lung cancer patients are smokers or ex smokers is pretty convincing dont you think....so you have not provided a cite that Doll ignored air pollution.
Dont you think if this flaw existed in his findings it would have been exploited by the tobacco companies
-
You certainly are not a scientist.... Do you accept that Doll showed conclusively that Smoking causes Lung cancer...
If you say he ignored air pollution you need to provide a cite
Anyone can develop lung cancer, but around 90% of cases occur in people who smoke or who used to smoke. Your risk of getting lung cancer increases with the number of cigarettes you’ve smoked and the number of years you’ve been a smoker. If you stop smoking, the risk gets lower over time – after 10 years, your risk of lung cancer falls to half that of a smoker.
www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/lung-cancer/causes
You are also not a scientist. There is an association between lung cancer and smoking.
Scientific studies that show an association between a factor and a health
effect do not necessarily imply that the factor causes the health effect.
https://www.acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20071030_AssociationCausation.pdf
-
You are also not a scientist. There is an association between lung cancer and smoking.
Scientific studies that show an association between a factor and a health
effect do not necessarily imply that the factor causes the health effect.
https://www.acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20071030_AssociationCausation.pdf
first we have this which completeley destroys your claim that doll ignored air pollution
At first, though, many greeted the connection between smoking and cancer with scepticism. Smoking was seen as just too "normal" an activity to be so dangerous. It took seven years for the Ministry of Health to take Doll's findings seriously; the tobacco industry hired its own statistician to prove that air pollution was the main cause.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1494745/Professor-Sir-Richard-Doll.html
Are you now making a further unsubstantiated claim that Dolls study only showed an association and not a causative effect....another cite is required
-
I'm not a scientist and I don't need to be; the information is available to be found;
Outdoor air pollution is an increasingly important risk factor for lung cancer among former and never-smokers. Though the global prevalence of smoking has decreased in recent decades, lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death......
There is an urgent need to not only raise awareness of air pollution as a cause of lung cancer, but to explore how public health control strategies for tobacco might be applied to control of air pollution......
The increasing lung cancer risk for nonsmokers posed by outdoor air pollution shows that smoking bans do not truly make cities “smoke free” or prevent all health harm from breathing smoke-polluted air.
https://medium.com/vital-strategies/breathing-smoke-in-the-city-air-pollution-and-lung-cancer-c4436f3f634c
And from this you conclude that smoking does not cause lung cancer? How laughable. I don’t need to be a scientist to know that those dog alerts were unscientific, unverifiable and unreliable.
-
You are also not a scientist. There is an association between lung cancer and smoking.
Scientific studies that show an association between a factor and a health
effect do not necessarily imply that the factor causes the health effect.
https://www.acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20071030_AssociationCausation.pdf
ive studied science extensively.....my day job still involves reading and assessing scientific papers
-
ive studied science extensively.....my day job still involves reading and assessing scientific papers
Why?
-
ive studied science extensively.....my day job still involves reading and assessing scientific papers
And yet you appear to be unaware of how difficult it is to prove causation;
Epidemiological evidence can only show that this risk factor is associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. The higher the correlation the more certain the association, but it cannot prove the causation.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html
-
You are absolutely wrong in your assertions. First the high rate of smoking in China would not see a rise in lung cancer until 20 to 25 years later.. You contradict Doll yet the tobacco companies haven't been able to dispute his figures ....don't you think they would if they could.
We are told we, can't criticise Grime..... because he's the expert.... Do you realise how foolish your criticism of Dolls research makes you look
You refer to him as the expert when banging out your mantra of "no evidential value".
Do you realise how foolish you look by making out you are the forums "scientific correspondent" yet you are unable to design a scientific test programme for sniffer dogs using feeble excuses for not doing so?
-
You refer to him as the expert when banging out your mantra of "no evidential value".
Do you realise how foolish you look by making out you are the forums "scientific correspondent" yet you are unable to design a scientific test programme for sniffer dogs using feeble excuses for not doing so?
Could you give a cite that I am unable to design a scientific test programme.... I certainly could... But... Tell me... Why should I bother to do so on a forum where a respected world class scientist such s RIchard Doll is deemed unable to..
Whatever I proposed would not be accepted
-
And from this you conclude that smoking does not cause lung cancer? How laughable. I don’t need to be a scientist to know that those dog alerts were unscientific, unverifiable and unreliable.
I have concluded nothing except that traffic pollution is as dangerous to health as smoking is. It's only now that it's becoming so obvious that concerns are being expressed and solutions explored. My advice for what it's worth is live in the countryside if possible; don't jog along busy roads and limit car journeys as much as possible.
You are entitled to your opinions on dog alerts, but leave out the references to science unless you are capable of explaining how science can be used to evaluate their performance. 'Unscientific' is a nonsensical term in my opinion. Criticising something for being unscientific is irrelevant unless it has been claimed to be scientific. It's the straw man argument again.
-
Why?
The are I work in is subject to constant research and innovation...I subscribe to several professional scientific journals whose article I read and form a judgement....and discuss with fellow professionals
-
And yet you appear to be unaware of how difficult it is to prove causation;
Epidemiological evidence can only show that this risk factor is associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. The higher the correlation the more certain the association, but it cannot prove the causation.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html
Im not unaware of anything...are you saying Doll has not proved the link between lung cance and smoking
-
Could you give a cite that I am unable to design a scientific test programme.... I certainly could... But... Tell me... Why should I bother to do so on a forum where a respected world class scientist such s RIchard Doll is deemed unable to..
Whatever I proposed would not be accepted
Are you suggesting that everyone on the forum agrees with my assessment of Doll's study? I very much doubt that.
I have seen forum members praising your abilities, but 'Nobody would believe me' is very defeatist, isn't it? You seem fond of making claims but when challenged you can't see them through imo.
-
Im not unaware of anything...are you saying Doll has not proved the link between lung cance and smoking
Link? There is certainly a link, but is there a causal link?
-
Are you suggesting that everyone on the forum agrees with my assessment of Doll's study? I very much doubt that.
I have seen forum members praising your abilities, but 'Nobody would believe me' is very defeatist, isn't it? You seem fond of making claims but when challenged you can't see them through imo.
im sure very view agree with your views....from the BMJ...
Epidemiologist who showed that smoking caused cancer and heart disease
William Richard Shaboe Doll, epidemiologist Medical Research Council 1946-69 and regius professor of medicine Oxford University 1969-79 (b Hampton 28 October 1912; q St Thomas’ Hospital Medical School, London, 1937; CH, OBE, FRS, DSc, MD, DM, FRCP, FFPHM), d 24 July 2005.
-
Link? There is certainly a link, but is there a causal link?
according to the BDJ......and many others...YES
-
im sure very view agree with your views....from the BMJ...
Epidemiologist who showed that smoking caused cancer and heart disease
William Richard Shaboe Doll, epidemiologist Medical Research Council 1946-69 and regius professor of medicine Oxford University 1969-79 (b Hampton 28 October 1912; q St Thomas’ Hospital Medical School, London, 1937; CH, OBE, FRS, DSc, MD, DM, FRCP, FFPHM), d 24 July 2005.
In my opinion the medical community gradually decided that enough studies showed an association between smoking and lung cancer to decide it had been proved.
-
In my opinion the medical community gradually decided that enough studies showed an association between smoking and lung cancer to decide it had been proved.
im sure they will be thrilled to hear your opinion
-
im sure they will be thrilled to hear your opinion
I'm sure they know that their claims of having proved a causal link are not completely true. Under US law;
Epidemiological studies can only go to prove that an agent could have caused, but not that it did cause, an effect in any particular case.....
"Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual's disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
-
I'm sure they know that their claims of having proved a causal link are not completely true. Under US law;
Epidemiological studies can only go to prove that an agent could have caused, but not that it did cause, an effect in any particular case.....
"Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual's disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
You are making an assumption that Doll only used epidemiology....As far as I remember he did base part of his study on a grup of doctors who smoked and followed their health for 20 years so thats a bit more than epedemiology...
you still havent provided a cite he ignored pollution
-
I have concluded nothing except that traffic pollution is as dangerous to health as smoking is. It's only now that it's becoming so obvious that concerns are being expressed and solutions explored. My advice for what it's worth is live in the countryside if possible; don't jog along busy roads and limit car journeys as much as possible.
You are entitled to your opinions on dog alerts, but leave out the references to science unless you are capable of explaining how science can be used to evaluate their performance. 'Unscientific' is a nonsensical term in my opinion. Criticising something for being unscientific is irrelevant unless it has been claimed to be scientific. It's the straw man argument again.
oh your position appears to have changed now. Do you now accept that smoking can cause lung cancer? ps: if I choose to point out that something is unscientific then I will, regardless of your disapproval. It is not a straw man, it is a fact.
-
Everything is relative imo, it all depends on how much you smoke, if as a non smoker you are subject to others smoking. I know a man in his nineties who smokes every day yet his wife, a non smoker, died of lung cancer many years ago. Take from that what you may, it's all in the genes apparently.
-
Everything is relative imo, it all depends on how much you smoke, if as a non smoker you are subject to others smoking. I know a man in his nineties who smokes every day yet his wife, a non smoker, died of lung cancer many years ago. Take from that what you may, it's all in the genes apparently.
Perhaps a passive smoker statistic?
-
Everything is relative imo, it all depends on how much you smoke, if as a non smoker you are subject to others smoking. I know a man in his nineties who smokes every day yet his wife, a non smoker, died of lung cancer many years ago. Take from that what you may, it's all in the genes apparently.
And my parents used to leave me unattended numerous times as a child and I never came to harm, meanwhile I had a friend who was walking home from school with his mother who got knocked down and killed by a car. So what does this tell you?
-
I'm sure they know that their claims of having proved a causal link are not completely true. Under US law;
Epidemiological studies can only go to prove that an agent could have caused, but not that it did cause, an effect in any particular case.....
"Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual's disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
Tobacco smoking is by far the leading cause of lung cancer. About 80% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking, and many others are caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-small-cell-lung-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/what-causes.html
That's an American site
-
Do it then instead of trotting out your usual retort of you are the only one on here with brains enough to understand [ fill in as appropriate here] and all other posters, especially sceptics, are ESN.
Again what is the point.... Perhaps I can show you...
Why not start with 20 apartments/ houses..... Dog and handler told cadaver odour in 3.....but in fact only prersnt in 2
And not in final 6
Dog searches perhaps 4 a day over a period... I wonder how many handlers would
1. Identify the two apartments, with the sample
2. Give false, alerts... Particularly in the final six apartments
-
You are making an assumption that Doll only used epidemiology....As far as I remember he did base part of his study on a grup of doctors who smoked and followed their health for 20 years so thats a bit more than epedemiology...
you still havent provided a cite he ignored pollution
Do you know what epidemiology means?
-
Do you know what epidemiology means?
No
-
No
Perhaps you could explain what this meant then?
"You are making an assumption that Doll only used epidemiology..." Post #114
-
oh your position appears to have changed now. Do you now accept that smoking can cause lung cancer? ps: if I choose to point out that something is unscientific then I will, regardless of your disapproval. It is not a straw man, it is a fact.
I would like to know what 'unscientific' means in your opinion?
-
I would like to know what 'unscientific' means in your opinion?
I would say in general terms something not supported by evidence
#
-
Perhaps you could explain what this meant then?
"You are making an assumption that Doll only used epidemiology..." Post #114
epidemiology
/ˌɛpɪdiːmɪˈɒlədʒi/Submit
noun
the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health....
thats the dictionary definition...the BMJ goes to a chapter....what do you understand by epidemiology
-
One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand that if you drink or inhale poison then there will inevitably be consequences. All alcohol is poison as is inhaling carcinogenic substances when smoking.
-
One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand that if you drink or inhale poison then there will inevitably be consequences.
and the consequences are the evidence
-
epidemiology
/ˌɛpɪdiːmɪˈɒlədʒi/Submit
noun
the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health....
thats the dictionary definition...the BMJ goes to a chapter....what do you understand by epidemiology
Sir Richard Doll was a doctor and an epidemiologist, so what did you mean when you said I was assuming that he only used epidemiology?
-
I would say in general terms something not supported by evidence
#
Are criminal convictions, based on evidence, scientific then?
-
Sir Richard Doll was a doctor and an epidemiologist, so what did you mean when you said I was assuming that he only used epidemiology?
You asked me if I understood what epidemiolgy meant... I answerred your post and asked you a question...
-
You asked me if I understood what epidemiolgy meant... I answerred your post and asked you a question...
You said 'No'
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=504059;topic=10452.120
I then asked another question.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10452.msg504082#msg504082
You replied to that by answering my original question. Sir Richard Doll was a doctor and an epidemiologist. Epidemiology isn't a tool, it's a branch of medicine, so your statement about Doll 'using' it doesn't make sense.
-
You said 'No'
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=504059;topic=10452.120
I then asked another question.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10452.msg504082#msg504082
You replied to that by answering my original question. Sir Richard Doll was a doctor and an epidemiologist. Epidemiology isn't a tool, it's a branch of medicine, so your statement about Doll 'using' it doesn't make sense.
Epidemiology certainly is s tool used to study disease in populations...anaesthesia a branch and a tool
-
Again what is the point.... Perhaps I can show you...
Why not start with 20 apartments/ houses..... Dog and handler told cadaver odour in 3.....but in fact only prersnt in 2
And not in final 6
Dog searches perhaps 4 a day over a period... I wonder how many handlers would
1. Identify the two apartments, with the sample
2. Give false, alerts... Particularly in the final six apartments
What do you think this will prove ?
How will the results of your "wonderings" be applied to deliver a test that is repeatable and reliable with respect to any sniffer dog ?
-
What do you think this will prove ?
How will the results of your "wonderings" be applied to deliver a test that is repeatable and reliable with respect to any sniffer dog ?
Excellent question. 8@??)(
-
What do you think this will prove ?
How will the results of your "wonderings" be applied to deliver a test that is repeatable and reliable with respect to any sniffer dog ?
Why are the dogs tested at all.... What does that prove
It would begin to build a body of evidence that would give an indication of how reliable unconfirmed alerts are... At the moment there is not really any apart from the tezt that showed handlers cued their dogs
-
Why are the dogs tested at all.... What does that prove
It would begin to build a body of evidence that would give an indication of how reliable unconfirmed alerts are... At the moment there is not really any apart from the tezt that showed handlers cued their dogs
Cite please - What text are you talking about?
-
Why are the dogs tested at all.... What does that prove
It would begin to build a body of evidence that would give an indication of how reliable unconfirmed alerts are... At the moment there is not really any apart from the tezt that showed handlers cued their dogs
Every dog like people have different skills and abilities, no two dogs are ever the same so comparng the abilities of search dogs is like comparing chalk and cheese. The use of these dogs is well established however within policing and are an extremely valuable tool which science has yet to replicate exactly.
More than eleven years on and attempts are still being made to undermine Grime and Eddie despite the fact that the former made it very clear that the alerts in Portugal had no evidential reliability if uncorroborated. The alerts exist however and only related to places, clothing and objects with associations to the McCanns. Eddie did not show any interest elsewhere or to objects and clothing associated with others. Given that it was the McCann's child that disappeared I find that fact very revealing.
-
Every dog like people have different skills and abilities, no two dogs are ever the same so comparng the abilities of search dogs is like comparing chalk and cheese. The use of these dogs is well established however within policing and are an extremely valuable tool which science has yet to replicate exactly.
So if they can't be tested the alerts have no evidential value
-
So if they can't be tested the alerts have no evidential value
Individual dogs can certainly be tested in order to determine their ability. Difficulty is though is that these dogs are trained in the UK using different regimes and target scents. A dog used to find only cadavers should be trained only using cadavers and that is still illegal in the UK as far as I am aware.
-
Epidemiology certainly is s tool used to study disease in populations...anaesthesia a branch and a tool
I think epidemiological results are a tool, but epidemiology it self is an activity. However, what other 'tool' was Doll using, which wasn't epidemiology?
-
I think epidemiological results are a tool, but epidemiology it self is an activity. However, what other 'tool' was Doll using, which wasn't epidemiology?
What do you understand by epidemiology
-
Every dog like people have different skills and abilities, no two dogs are ever the same so comparng the abilities of search dogs is like comparing chalk and cheese. The use of these dogs is well established however within policing and are an extremely valuable tool which science has yet to replicate exactly.
More than eleven years on and attempts are still being made to undermine Grime and Eddie despite the fact that the former made it very clear that the alerts in Portugal had no evidential reliability if uncorroborated. The alerts exist however and only related to places, clothing and objects with associations to the McCanns. Eddie did not show any interest elsewhere or to objects and clothing associated with others. Given that it was the McCann's child that disappeared I find that fact very revealing.
And I've given a very good explanation as to why the dogs alerted only to things McCann... Which was to a certain extent confirmed by the test posted recently
-
What do you understand by epidemiology
Epidemiology is the study of disease in human populations. The results are used as the basis of what is called evidence-based medicine and to try to improve public health.
-
Epidemiology is the study of disease in human populations. The results are used as the basis of what is called evidence-based medicine and to try to improve public health.
so your definition would include what factors affect a disease in a population
-
What do you think this will prove ?
How will the results of your "wonderings" be applied to deliver a test that is repeatable and reliable with respect to any sniffer dog ?
It would depend on the results of the tests..
-
It would depend on the results of the tests..
You are beginning to sound like the old saw about Cristoforo Colombo.
When he set out he didn't know where he was going.
When he arrived there he didn't know where he was.
When he returned he didn't know where he had been.
For the rest of his life swore he had been somewhere else.
-
You are beginning to sound like the old saw about Cristoforo Colombo.
When he set out he didn't know where he was going.
When he arrived there he didn't know where he was.
When he returned he didn't know where he had been.
For the rest of his life swore he had been somewhere else.
You asked me to suggest a design for test....I said it was a waste of time and i would show you it was a waste of time...you have just proved it..
-
It would depend on the results of the tests..
so alice wants to suggest the results of such a test would ptove nothing...
if the dogs involved scored 99% accuracy would that prove nothing
if they scored 25% accuracy would that prove nothing...I would say it would
-
so your definition would include what factors affect a disease in a population
Which are extremely difficult to identify and evaluate. The warning signs of the damage caused by traffic emissions were there in the 1950's, but have taken a long time to be acknowledged.
-
Which are extremely difficult to identify and evaluate. The warning signs of the damage caused by traffic emissions were there in the 1950's, but have taken a long time to be acknowledged.
Are you still suggesting Doll ignored them...
-
so alice wants to suggest the results of such a test would ptove nothing...
if the dogs involved scored 99% accuracy would that prove nothing
if they scored 25% accuracy would that prove nothing...I would say it would
It would confirm the reliability or unreliability of some dogs. It couldn't be used to judge any other dogs because, like people, all dogs are different. In my opinion individual testing on a regular basis is the way to monitor them.
No-one would suggest that testing a group of schoolchildren's spelling skills would enlighten us about all schoolchildren's spelling skills.
-
It would confirm the reliability or unreliability of some dogs. It couldn't be used to judge any other dogs because, like people, all dogs are different. In my opinion individual testing on a regular basis is the way to monitor them.
No-one would suggest that testing a group of schoolchildren's spelling skills would enlighten us about all schoolchildren's spelling skills.
Then you are suggesting there's no way to assess the dogs unconfirmed alerts so they will stay as no evidental reliability
-
so alice wants to suggest the results of such a test would ptove nothing...
if the dogs involved scored 99% accuracy would that prove nothing
if they scored 25% accuracy would that prove nothing...I would say it would
I neither said nor implied any such thing.
I asked you to delineate a test which was both repeatable and reliable, which you said you could do. Thus far you have failed dismally to do so. Reverting as per usual to name calling and deflection.
-
Then you are suggesting there's no way to assess the dogs unconfirmed alerts so they will stay as no evidental reliability
Only if the judge says so.
-
Only if the judge says so.
And every English judge has said no to date
-
It would confirm the reliability or unreliability of some dogs. It couldn't be used to judge any other dogs because, like people, all dogs are different. In my opinion individual testing on a regular basis is the way to monitor them.
No-one would suggest that testing a group of schoolchildren's spelling skills would enlighten us about all schoolchildren's spelling skills.
in what way are “all (cadaver) dogs” different?
-
And every English judge has said no to date
That is not quite correct as you well know.
England, contrary to popular belief in some quarters, does not constitute the entire world.
-
And I've given a very good explanation as to why the dogs alerted only to things McCann... Which was to a certain extent confirmed by the test posted recently
The obvious reason being that the dog found scent on the McCann's things because they were contaminated.
-
Then you are suggesting there's no way to assess the dogs unconfirmed alerts so they will stay as no evidental reliability
No amount of 'scientific' testing will give a dog's alert 'evidential reliability. Corroborating evidence provides that.
-
in what way are “all (cadaver) dogs” different?
Are you suggesting all dogs have similar personalities, motivations, and abilities? If they were all the same no dog would ever fail to make the grade as a police or guide dog.
-
Are you suggesting all dogs have similar personalities, motivations, and abilities? If they were all the same no dog would ever fail to make the grade as a police or guide dog.
We are discussing dogs that HAVE made the grade aren’t we? In what way are they all different?
-
We are discussing dogs that HAVE made the grade aren’t we? In what way are they all different?
Ability to concentrate on the task. Lots of dogs would prefer to do their own thing rather that seeking out cadaver odour.
-
Ability to concentrate on the task. Lots of dogs would prefer to do their own thing rather that seeking out cadaver odour.
Not if it's a game, which it is to them.
-
Ability to concentrate on the task. Lots of dogs would prefer to do their own thing rather that seeking out cadaver odour.
Then I would suggest those dogs haven’t made the grade.
-
Not if it's a game, which it is to them.
I think working dogs know the difference between work and play. Guide dogs for the blind definitely do. They behave completely differently once the harness is on.
After 9/11 S and R dogs got depressed when they found no living people. Three hundred digs worked 12 hour shifts and found thousands of body parts.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357744/Rescue-dogs-depressed-by-vain-search-for-survivors.html
-
We are discussing dogs that HAVE made the grade aren’t we? In what way are they all different?
Do you expect them all to be the same? Have you known any dogs?
-
Then I would suggest those dogs haven’t made the grade.
They maybe the equivalent to an average pass mark student compared to the ones that get A+ marks.
-
Do you expect them all to be the same? Have you known any dogs?
If they are professional dogs I do expect them all to behave and perform to a certain standard. Dogs are a tool, like a metal detector, if the tool is unreliable (ie some work some don ‘t) then it throws into question the overall reliability of the tool, for how are you supposed to know in advance which ones work and which ones don’t? If they don’t work then they shouldn’t be used in any professional capacity.
-
They maybe the equivalent to an average pass mark student compared to the ones that get A+ marks.
The pass mark should be the ability to demonstrate close to 100% accuracy or else their reliability can be called into question.
-
They maybe the equivalent to an average pass mark student compared to the ones that get A+ marks.
Quite so. Like any living beings they vary in ability. Just like human students and workers individual assessment is the way to judge a dog.
-
If they are professional dogs I do expect them all to behave and perform to a certain standard. Dogs are a tool, like a metal detector, if the tool is unreliable (ie some work some don ‘t) then it throws into question the overall reliability of the tool, for how are you supposed to know in advance which ones work and which ones don’t? If they don’t work then they shouldn’t be used in any professional capacity.
Dogs are used as if they are tools, but can't be compared to inanimate objects like metal detectors. Like a human professional the dogs have to be judged individually. That's why they should all have a track record. That's their CV.
-
Quite so. Like any living beings they vary in ability. Just like human students and workers individual assessment is the way to judge a dog.
But like humans they are fallible.
So, even the best student or dog with a good track record of assessment could make errors.
-
Dogs are used as if they are tools, but can't be compared to inanimate objects like metal detectors. Like a human professional the dogs have to be judged individually. That's why they should all have a track record. That's their CV.
If they are not independently tested then their track record cannot be regarded as reliable
-
But like humans they are fallible.
So, even the best student or dog with a good track record of assessment could make errors.
Which is another reason why testing one set of dogs 'scientifically' can't tell us how another set of dogs will behave.
-
If they are not independently tested then their track record cannot be regarded as reliable
Why are you obsessed with reliability? A dog alert isn't evidence which can be used against anyone. No-one is suggesting they should be used as stand-alone evidence. Alerts are pointers, suggestions, intelligence and nothing more is claimed for them.
-
Why are you obsessed with reliability? A dog alert isn't evidence which can be used against anyone. No-one is suggesting they should be used as stand-alone evidence. Alerts are pointers, suggestions, intelligence and nothing more is claimed for them.
You need to tell amaral and all the other sceptics who think dogs don't lie
-
You need to tell amaral and all the other sceptics who think dogs don't lie
The first investigators thought all the evidence pointed to death in the apartment and disposal of the body by the parents. All the evidence, not just the dog's alerts.
-
The first investigators thought all the evidence pointed to death in the apartment and disposal of the body by the parents. All the evidence, not just the dog's alerts.
So you accept they treated the alerts as evidence..a major error... None of the evidence used to make them arguidos was later confirmed
-
So you accept they treated the alerts as evidence..a major error... None of the evidence used to make them arguidos was later confirmed
I think we now need a thread discussing the nature of evidence. On my opinion evidence is everything collected during an investigation. It may be relevant or irrelevant, true or false, reliable or unreliable, helpful or unhelpful.
-
I think we now need a thread discussing the nature of evidence. On my opinion evidence is everything collected during an investigation. It may be relevant or irrelevant, true or false, reliable or unreliable, helpful or unhelpful.
So kates testimony is evidence of abduction
-
The first investigators thought all the evidence pointed to death in the apartment and disposal of the body by the parents. All the evidence, not just the dog's alerts.
From the Guardian
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case.
THE MAIN EVIDENCE
-
So kates testimony is evidence of abduction
Kate's testimony is evidence that she thought there had been an abduction, just as the alerts are evidence that Eddie thought he smelled dead body scent in 5A. Neither have 'evidential reliability' on their own.
-
Kate's testimony is evidence that she thought there had been an abduction, just as the alerts are evidence that Eddie thought he smelled dead body scent in 5A. Neither have 'evidential reliability' on their own.
So there is evidence of abduction.... And who says it has no eviential reliability ...and you now claim to know what Eddie is thinking
-
Kate's testimony is evidence that she thought there had been an abduction, just as the alerts are evidence that Eddie thought he smelled dead body scent in 5A. Neither have 'evidential reliability' on their own.
Cite for knowing what Eddie was thinking
-
So there is evidence of abduction.... And who says it has no eviential reliability ...and you now claim to know what Eddie is thinking
When a person says what they think that's evidence of what they think, not evidence that their thoughts are correct.
I assume that Eddie alerted because he thought he had found the scent he was trained to find. In both xases other supporting evidence is needed.
-
When a person says what they think that's evidence of what they think, not evidence that their thoughts are correct.
I assume that Eddie alerted because he thought he had found the scent he was trained to find. In both xases other supporting evidence is needed.
Kates is admissable in court... She can be Cross examined... The dogs isn't in england
-
Science isn't easy to define. Put simply. it's a branch of knowledge or study. Scientists seek to expand knowledge by observation and experimentation. The most successful sciences have uncovered facts and truths which can be 'proved' by replication. An apple never goes upwards when it leaves the apple tree. Gravity is a proven fact and is seen as a law; Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton's law is very useful, but it can't explain why gravity exists. In order to explain why gravity exists a theory is needed; Einsteins Theory of Relativity is used for that.
A law is always true, a theory can be falsified.
https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
Most of the 'soft' sciences produce theories rather than laws, so their findings are always open to being discarded or expanded.
Therefore appealing to 'science' as some sort of gold standard is a faulty idea. It very much depends on the type of science and the value of it's findings.
-
Science isn't easy to define. Put simply. it's a branch of knowledge or study. Scientists seek to expand knowledge by observation and experimentation. The most successful sciences have uncovered facts and truths which can be 'proved' by replication. An apple never goes upwards when it leaves the apple tree. Gravity is a proven fact and is seen as a law; Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton's law is very useful, but it can't explain why gravity exists. In order to explain why gravity exists a theory is needed; Einsteins Theory of Relativity is used for that.
A law is always true, a theory can be falsified.
https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
Most of the 'soft' sciences produce theories rather than laws, so their findings are always open to being discarded or expanded.
Therefore appealing to 'science' as some sort of gold standard is a faulty idea. It very much depends on the type of science and the value of it's findings.
Science has never claimed to have, all the answers ....where would we be without it... (Non PC part removed by Moderator)
-
Science has never claimed to have, all the answers ....where would we be without it... Living in caves...are you a creationists by any chance
What is a Creationist? I suppose that I ought to know. But I do get a bit confused about this sort of thing.
-
What is a Creationist? I suppose that I ought to know. But I do get a bit confused about this sort of thing.
I think it is someone who believes God created the world in seven days!
I don't.
-
Kates is admissable in court... She can be Cross examined... The dogs isn't in england
I can see nothing stopping a judge from allowing police dog handlers from giving evidence in court. Tracker dog handlers have been heard before;
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/12/sniffer-dogs-trial-evidence-research
-
I think it is someone who believes God created the world in seven days!
I don't.
Well, it would be going some, wouldn't it. Apart form all those dinosaurs on The Ark.
-
Science has never claimed to have, all the answers ....where would we be without it... Living in caves...are you a creationists by any chance
'Science' may not have, but there are posters on the forum who seem to think it can provide answers about working dogs and their alerts.
-
'Science' may not have, but there are posters on the forum who seem to think it can provide answers about working dogs and their alerts.
It can test them... And of course the alerts rely on science to analyse, any evidence found
-
What is a Creationist? I suppose that I ought to know. But I do get a bit confused about this sort of thing.
Someone who believes that the universe and life were created rather than occurring through natural processes. Such is the esteem in which science is held that some creationists have developed a theory they call 'Intelligent Design', which they say is;
"an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Many theories claim to be scientific, but not all of them are.
-
I can see nothing stopping a judge from allowing police dog handlers from giving evidence in court. Tracker dog handlers have been heard before;
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/12/sniffer-dogs-trial-evidence-research
never been used in England and how many times in Scotland... One or two
-
Someone who believes that the universe and life were created rather than occurring through natural processes. Such is the esteem in which science is held that some creationists have developed a theory they call 'Intelligent Design', which they say is;
"an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Many theories claim to be scientific, but not all of them are.
I'm referring to young earth creationists who are quite anti science as you seem to be
-
It can test them... And of course the alerts rely on science to analyse, any evidence found
It can test anything it likes, but whether the results are meaningful or valid is open to interpretation. The alerts don't necessarily rely on science. Other corroborating evidence can support the hypothesis that the dogs have located the site where a cadaver has been.
-
Someone who believes that the universe and life were created rather than occurring through natural processes. Such is the esteem in which science is held that some creationists have developed a theory they call 'Intelligent Design', which they say is;
"an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Many theories claim to be scientific, but not all of them are.
Thanks.
I suppose that Planet Earth was created by something or another. But what happened after that is another story. Which is were evolution comes in.
-
I'm referring to young earth creationists who are quite anti science as you seem to be
Science has expanded human knowledge and allowed us to understand and shape our environment. Scientists and science have been so admired that practitioners in subjects which are not really sciences have worked very hard to convince people that they are.
-
Science has expanded human knowledge and allowed us to understand and shape our environment. Scientists and science have been so admired that practitioners in subjects which are not really sciences have worked very hard to convince people that they are.
And that's, why it's important to point out the dogs, are not scientifically tested
-
Someone who believes that the universe and life were created rather than occurring through natural processes. Such is the esteem in which science is held that some creationists have developed a theory they call 'Intelligent Design', which they say is;
"an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Many theories claim to be scientific, but not all of them are.
From the article you quoted..
Andrew Taslitz, professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh, published a comprehensive analysis of the use of canine evidence in North America in 1990. He concluded that such evidence is imbued with mythical qualities about a dog's abilities and is likely to be overvalued, misunderstood and misused by jurors.
-
Thanks.
I suppose that Planet Earth was created by something or another. But what happened after that is another story. Which is were evolution comes in.
I don't know the answer. I find it hard to understand theories such as the 'big bang' but I also find it hard to believe that something exists which could conceive of, design and build one universe, let alone many of them. .
-
And that's, why it's important to point out the digs, are not scientifically tested
It might be if the dogs were a suitable subject for scientific testing. In my opinion they're not, so it's not relevant.
-
It might be if the dogs were a suitable subject for scientific testing. In my opinion they're not, so it's not relevant.
IMO they are and it is
-
I don't know the answer. I find it hard to understand theories such as the 'big bang' but I also find it hard to believe that something exists which could conceive of, design and build one universe, let alone many of them. .
I don't have a problem with The Big Bang. Something bumped into something, whether by accident or design I really don't know, but the resulting Universe is actually beyond description, and pretty glorious. Even to say that it is limitless is limiting in itself. Although we don't even know that either.
These days I just believe in The Universe and what glory I can see. But tis hard to believe that it was just an accident. The seasons and the rebirth, day and night, are just too much to comprehend for any old ordinary person.
Mathematics which I believe rule The Earth, are splendid all by themselves. Where did we get the power to understand this?
-
I don't have a problem with The Big Bang. Something bumped into something, whether by accident or design I really don't know, but the resulting Universe is actually beyond description, and pretty glorious. Even to say that it is limitless is limiting in itself. Although we don't even know that either.
These days I just believe in The Universe and what glory I can see. But tis hard to believe that it was just an accident. The seasons and the rebirth, day and night, are just too much to comprehend for any old ordinary person.
Mathematics which I believe rule The Earth, are splendid all by themselves. Where did we get the power to understand this?
“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
-
“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
Not according to the bible 8(0(*
-
“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
Okay, I can contemplate that, but more likely a vacuum which imploded. Is it possible for an implosion to throw out matter if there was nothing to start with?
There is obviously something now, which must have come from somewhere.
-
Not according to the bible 8(0(*
That would depend on whether or not one believes The Bible. Nothing wrong if you do. It's a good guide to how we should behave.
I try, and often fail miserably.
-
“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
Happens all the time in Afghanistan.
-
Dogs are used as if they are tools, but can't be compared to inanimate objects like metal detectors. Like a human professional the dogs have to be judged individually. That's why they should all have a track record. That's their CV.
CVs are not a reliable indicator of performance , they tend to be full of exaggeration, half-truths and self-aggrandizement- IMO
-
Science isn't easy to define. Put simply. it's a branch of knowledge or study. Scientists seek to expand knowledge by observation and experimentation. The most successful sciences have uncovered facts and truths which can be 'proved' by replication. An apple never goes upwards when it leaves the apple tree. Gravity is a proven fact and is seen as a law; Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton's law is very useful, but it can't explain why gravity exists. In order to explain why gravity exists a theory is needed; Einsteins Theory of Relativity is used for that.
A law is always true, a theory can be falsified.
https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
Most of the 'soft' sciences produce theories rather than laws, so their findings are always open to being discarded or expanded.
Therefore appealing to 'science' as some sort of gold standard is a faulty idea. It very much depends on the type of science and the value of it's findings.
If I describe something (let’s say following a recipe for baked alaska) as “not exactly rocket science “ would you start a thread to point out that cookery is not a science and call my argument a strawman?
-
Happens all the time in Afghanistan.
Oh Dear. Sorry. I laughed. Shouldn't a done that.
-
I don't have a problem with The Big Bang. Something bumped into something, whether by accident or design I really don't know, but the resulting Universe is actually beyond description, and pretty glorious. Even to say that it is limitless is limiting in itself. Although we don't even know that either.
These days I just believe in The Universe and what glory I can see. But tis hard to believe that it was just an accident. The seasons and the rebirth, day and night, are just too much to comprehend for any old ordinary person.
Mathematics which I believe rule The Earth, are splendid all by themselves. Where did we get the power to understand this?
Perhaps Shakespeare was right?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
-
Oh Dear. Sorry. I laughed. Shouldn't a done that.
So did I.
-
Not according to the bible 8(0(*
Well yes really,in the beginning God created etc ……….. so something from nothing.
-
Happens all the time in Afghanistan.
This was the one I was thinking of "Explosion rips through large Sunni gathering in Kabul, killing at least 50" a week ago but trying to find the headline I see there was another in the last few hours.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/explosion-rips-through-large-sunni-gathering-in-kabul-killing-at-least-40/2018/11/20/c8295b7a-eccf-11e8-baac-2a674e91502b_story.html?utm_term=.a11d798386f1
This time in an army base. "At least 27 killed in explosion at eastern Afghanistan army base" https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/afghanistan-violence-khost-1.4917648
-
And that's, why it's important to point out the dogs, are not scientifically tested
How are they tested then? You know like globally.
The USAF have 1300 dog teams available at any one time with 300 teams trained per annum. US Civil Aviation Security has 700 teams deployed. Expand that to the rest of the world and it hardly represents a cosy little cartel playing secret squirrel that some have suggested earlier.
Science extends a bit beyond drug trials and sniffer dogs. Are you suggesting that empirical and iterative tests are not scientific therefore have no validity?
-
The weekend beckons once again and with it will come the usual silliness. However, members are warned that referring to other members as naive, immature, hypocritical, stupid etc is a breach of forum etiquette and as such will attract sanctions.
Please keep posts amiable and constructive and above all please avoid goading or demeaning comments. TY.
-
CVs are not a reliable indicator of performance , they tend to be full of exaggeration, half-truths and self-aggrandizement- IMO
Humans fiddle with their own CV's, dogs don't. UK handlers and dogs are independently tested and licensed annually. Why would those testing them pass and license teams which don't meet the required standard?
-
Humans fiddle with their own CV's, dogs don't. UK handlers and dogs are independently tested and licensed annually. Why would those testing them pass and license teams which don't meet the required standard?
Independently tested by who.... And what form do these, tests take ...and humans write their own and the dogs CV
According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI...
So now Grime says he's a contractor for the FBI... not... The special advisor to...
Why did Grime claim to be an ACPO accredited dog handler in Jersey when he wasn't...
-
I'm referring to young earth creationists who are quite anti science as you seem to be
Science has enabled humans to understand and manipulate their environment as never before. The luckiest of us live lives of unbelievable comfort compared to previous generations. It has also enabled us to endanger our own survival. Global warming, plastics in the food chain and endangered bees are all caused by our use of scientific knowledge.
If I'm anti anything I'm anti human. We're the most intelligent life form on the planet and we've used our intelligence in such a way as to endanger the survival of the planet and every life form on it. In my opinion a new outlook is urgently required and I see no sign of that happening as quickly as it needs to.
-
Science has enabled humans to understand and manipulate their environment as never before. The luckiest of us live lives of unbelievable comfort compared to previous generations. It has also enabled us to endanger our own survival. Global warming, plastics in the food chain and endangered bees are all caused by our use of scientific knowledge.
If I'm anti anything I'm anti human. We're the most intelligent life form on the planet and we've used our intelligence in such a way as to endanger the survival of the planet and every life form on it. In my opinion a new outlook is urgently required and I see no sign of that happening as quickly as it needs to.
What you are doing is focusing on negatives and not giving a, balanced view.... Science has been an overwhelming positive force... To suggest otherwise is not accepting reality imo
-
What you are doing is focusing on negatives and not giving a, balanced view.... Science has been an overwhelming positive force... To suggest otherwise is not accepting reality imo
Ignoring the danger the planet and it's inhabitants are in is ignoring reality in my opinion.
-
Ignoring the danger the planet and it's inhabitants are in is ignoring reality in my opinion.
To think that Humans can destroy The Planet is arrogance, in my opinion. But Humans could possibly destroy themselves.
-
Ignoring the danger the planet and it's inhabitants are in is ignoring reality in my opinion.
And who has suggested that... The scientific community are not ignoring it and it will be science who solves the problem
-
To think that Humans can destroy The Planet is arrogance, in my opinion. But Humans could possibly destroy themselves.
If humans do destroy themselves then the planet and it's other inhabitants may recover from the adverse effects of human activity.
-
If humans do destroy themselves then the planet and it's other inhabitants may recover from the adverse effects of human activity.
Absolutely.
-
And who has suggested that... The scientific community are not ignoring it and it will be science who solves the problem
The scientific community can only warn people. It's the policy and law makers who have to act. People like Trump who see global warming as fake news. Scientists can warn and advise, they can't act.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/us-scientists-have-challenged-donald-trump-on-climate-change/news-story/18d31e1a4c4448490e3215365f54f1e8
-
The scientific community can only warn people. It's the policy and law makers who have to act. People like Trump who see global warming as fake news. Scientists can warn and advise, they can't act.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/us-scientists-have-challenged-donald-trump-on-climate-change/news-story/18d31e1a4c4448490e3215365f54f1e8
Like they warned about smoking but you don't believe them
-
Like they warned about smoking but you don't believe them
I assessed the risk to myself and decided it wasn't high. So far, after smoking for 60 years I have no health issues whatsoever. The evidence underpinning global warming is, in my opinion, much more reliable,
-
I assessed the risk to myself and decided it wasn't high. So far, after smoking for 60 years I have no health issues whatsoever. The evidence underpinning global warming is, in my opinion, much more reliable,
Me too. Plus family who all smoked, and all of them were over 90 when they died.
-
I assessed the risk to myself and decided it wasn't high. So far, after smoking for 60 years I have no health issues whatsoever. The evidence underpinning global warming is, in my opinion, much more reliable,
Do you disregarded what science said and assessed the risk yourself.... How can you criticise others for doing the same with the evidence Re global warming..
-
IMO, smoking like many other potentially harmful habits affects those with a predisposition to be affected. Hence Keith Richards.
-
IMO, smoking like many other potentially harmful habits affects those with a predisposition to be affected. Hence Keith Richards.
I agree. Smoking affects some and not other. Some people are prone to cancer and some aren't
-
Do you disregarded what science said and assessed the risk yourself.... How can you criticise others for doing the same with the evidence Re global warming..
Different 'sciences' have different levels of reliability.
-
I agree. Smoking affects some and not other. Some people are prone to cancer and some aren't
They might learn something by studying smokers who haven't developed lung cancer. They may find differences in lifestyle which could be relevant. Cancer does seem to run in families too.
-
They might learn something by studying smokers who haven't developed lung cancer. They may find differences in lifestyle which could be relevant. Cancer does seem to run in families too.
As I have said you seem to accept science when it suits you but reject it when it affects your lifestyle... So you have no right to criticise those who reject global warming
Genetics does play a role in all cancers... In lung cancer about 8%...
The evidence Re tobacco and lung cancer is totally overwhelming and cannot be denied
-
IMO, smoking like many other potentially harmful habits affects those with a predisposition to be affected. Hence Keith Richards.
Again you wish to dismiss the overwhelming evidence... I've said a lot on this forum Re the importance of understanding evidence.... The fact that someones uncle smoked 200 a day and lived till 110 does nothing to counter the work of Doll..
Doll's evidence is there for all to see...
-
IMO, smoking like many other potentially harmful habits affects those with a predisposition to be affected. Hence Keith Richards.
so in this case you are happy to disbelieve the experts who have presented the evidence for everyone to examine and criticise....but when it comes to grime...we are not allowed to question an expert
-
so in this case you are happy to disbelieve the experts who have presented the evidence for everyone to examine and criticise....but when it comes to grime...we are not allowed to question an expert
Why do you make assumptions on my opinion of the number of people who are predisposed?
-
Why do you make assumptions on my opinion of the number of people who are predisposed?
s
to be clear...do you accept smoking is a major cause of Lung cancer
-
s
to be clear...do you accept smoking is a major cause of Lung cancer
Personally I can't see what smoking and lung cancer have to do with the dog alerts and YES I have been reading the thread.
-
Humans fiddle with their own CV's, dogs don't. UK handlers and dogs are independently tested and licensed annually. Why would those testing them pass and license teams which don't meet the required standard?
Do dogs write their own CVs then! How astonishing. As for your other point, well quite, but you said that cadaver dogs, like humans were all different. My point was that they should all be the same, you seemed to disagree.
-
Personally I can't see what smoking and lung cancer have to do with the dog alerts and YES I have been reading the thread.
For me the relevance is the ability to assess and understand what is and isnt evidence
-
The scientific community can only warn people. It's the policy and law makers who have to act. People like Trump who see global warming as fake news. Scientists can warn and advise, they can't act.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/us-scientists-have-challenged-donald-trump-on-climate-change/news-story/18d31e1a4c4448490e3215365f54f1e8
is global warming an exact science?
-
I assessed the risk to myself and decided it wasn't high. So far, after smoking for 60 years I have no health issues whatsoever. The evidence underpinning global warming is, in my opinion, much more reliable,
how did you decide all those years ago when you started smoking that the risk to you (or to those around you breathing in such arevolting cocktail of chemicals) of developing cancer from it wasn’t high? Smoking does of course effect the heart as well, but I guess you don’t believe that either!
-
Personally I can't see what smoking and lung cancer have to do with the dog alerts and YES I have been reading the thread.
what is science? That’s the topic of this thread.
-
how did you decide all those years ago when you started smoking that the risk to you (or to those around you breathing in such arevolting cocktail of chemicals) of developing cancer from it wasn’t high? Smoking does of course effect the heart as well, but I guess you don’t believe that either!
and of course lung function.......emphysema and COPD....and of course mouth cancer...........gum disease...foul breath....I really dont see it has a lot going for it
-
and of course lung function.......emphysema and COPD....and of course mouth cancer...........gum disease...foul breath....I really dont see it has a lot going for it
plus it makes your face look like a tortoise scrotum, see the previously mentioned Keith Richards.
-
I assessed the risk to myself and decided it wasn't high. So far, after smoking for 60 years I have no health issues whatsoever. The evidence underpinning global warming is, in my opinion, much more reliable,
Have you ever given any thought to the impact your smoking has had on the environment and health of the planet?
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/serious-effects-cigarette-smoking-environment-and-human-health.php
-
how did you decide all those years ago when you started smoking that the risk to you (or to those around you breathing in such arevolting cocktail of chemicals) of developing cancer from it wasn’t high? Smoking does of course effect the heart as well, but I guess you don’t believe that either!
When I started smoking the risk hadn't been invented.
-
plus it makes your face look like a tortoise scrotum, see the previously mentioned Keith Richards.
I have noticed that heavy drinking has that effect. I don't have any illnesses and I am not wrinkly.
-
When I started smoking the risk hadn't been invented.
I remember the days - Capstan full strength and none of those ponsey filters. Boxes of 500 at Christmas ?{)(**
-
When I started smoking the risk hadn't been invented.
I didn’t realise you were that old, how fortunate to be ancient and unwrinkled. Let’s re-phrase. How did you decide all those years ago when you became aware of the risks associated with smoking that you (and all those around you breathing in your vile fumes) were low-risk for cancer?
-
When I started smoking the risk hadn't been invented.
The risk was never invented
-
The risk was never invented
Quite. Why would anyone have invented the risk of cancer from smoking? What was in it for them? IMO, this sort of thing demonstrates a paranoid tendency to buy into theories about state sponsored conspiracies and explains a lot.
-
I remember the days - Capstan full strength and none of those ponsey filters. Boxes of 500 at Christmas ?{)(**
I remember how cheap they were.
-
Please note, the anti smoking posts appear to be heading towards ad hom, please desist.
-
I remember the days - Capstan full strength and none of those ponsey filters. Boxes of 500 at Christmas ?{)(**
I worked with a chap who smoked Capstan Full Strength and sometimes begged one off him when I had none. I didn't exactly enjoy them though. I was introduced to Embassy Filter in the mid 60's by my midwife who smoked with me well into my labour too. (home birth) I sat on a towel watching Bonanza while she and my husband ate bacon butties. There were ashtrays in hospital wards also. Doll and Hill did their study in 1950 but neither the medical profession nor the public had noticed 20 years later in 1970 when smoking was still allowed more or less everywhere including aeroplanes.
-
Back to the topic
-
I worked with a chap who smoked Capstan Full Strength and sometimes begged one off him when I had none. I didn't exactly enjoy them though. I was introduced to Embassy Filter in the mid 60's by my midwife who smoked with me well into my labour too. (home birth) I sat on a towel watching Bonanza while she and my husband ate bacon butties. There were ashtrays in hospital wards also. Doll and Hill did their study in 1950 but neither the medical profession nor the public had noticed 20 years later in 1970 when smoking was still allowed more or less everywhere including aeroplanes.
And at the same time parents were leaving their children in Butlins Chalets and no one raised a word criticism
-
And at the same time parents were leaving their children in Butlins Chalets and no one raised a word criticism
...and stopped by the 1990s.
-
...and stopped by the 1990s.
What happened in the 1990s?
-
...and stopped by the 1990s.
But children have still been left in hotel rooms and still are..when posters on here ignore expert advice... And make there own decisions that might put childrens lives at risk... What right do they have to criticise the McCanns
-
The thread seems to have wandered off topic. In conclusion the word 'science' science covers a wide variety of subjects. Some can prove causes; like the moon's gravitational pull causing tidal movements on Earth. Others can only suggest causes; like epidemiology suggesting that smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore referring to 'science' is misleading because some sciences are more reliable than others.
-
And then there is this...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smoking-time-bomb-cigarettes-the-most-deadly-cause-of-house-fire-fatalities
-
The thread seems to have wandered off topic. In conclusion the word 'science' science covers a wide variety of subjects. Some can prove causes; like the moon's gravitational pull causing tidal movements on Earth. Others can only suggest causes; like epidemiology suggesting that smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore referring to 'science' is misleading because some sciences are more reliable than others.
There is no logic to your argument IMO.
-
The thread seems to have wandered off topic. In conclusion the word 'science' science covers a wide variety of subjects. Some can prove causes; like the moon's gravitational pull causing tidal movements on Earth. Others can only suggest causes; like epidemiology suggesting that smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore referring to 'science' is misleading because some sciences are more reliable than others.
According to the BMA and countless others smoking causes lung cancer... You are ignoring expert opinion and taking the thread off topic again..
What you are proving is that you are willing to ignore expert opinion... Backed by evidence... When it suits you
-
There is no logic to your argument IMO.
The moon's gravitational pull causes Earth's tides to react. It is the cause of how ALL tides behave ALL the time. We can be absolutely sure that it always has and it always will. That is a fact discovered by science.
Not ALL smokers get lung cancer. So for those who don't, smoking hasn't caused lung cancer Therefore it's not always true that smoking causes lung cancer.
Some sciences give us absolute certainties and some don't.
-
The moon's gravitational pull causes Earth's tides to react. It is the cause of how ALL tides behave ALL the time. We can be absolutely sure that it always has and it always will. That is a fact discovered by science.
Not ALL smokers get lung cancer. So for those who don't, smoking hasn't caused lung cancer Therefore it's not always true that smoking causes lung cancer.
Some sciences give us absolute certainties and some don't.
No scientist ever has claimed that ALL smokers get lung cancer. You are presenting a strawman argument.
-
The moon's gravitational pull causes Earth's tides to react. It is the cause of how ALL tides behave ALL the time. We can be absolutely sure that it always has and it always will. That is a fact discovered by science.
Not ALL smokers get lung cancer. So for those who don't, smoking hasn't caused lung cancer Therefore it's not always true that smoking causes lung cancer.
Some sciences give us absolute certainties and some don't.
As I have said it is agreed by all authorities that smoking causes lung cancer... If you wish to contradict the worlds experts it's up to you..
As a non smoker the chances of getting lung cancer is 0.2...
As a heavy smoker it's 25%....moderate smoker 15%
I made the analogy that drunk drivers cause death on the road.... Perhaps you would disagree with that too
-
The moon's gravitational pull causes Earth's tides to react. It is the cause of how ALL tides behave ALL the time. We can be absolutely sure that it always has and it always will. That is a fact discovered by science.
Not ALL smokers get lung cancer. So for those who don't, smoking hasn't caused lung cancer Therefore it's not always true that smoking causes lung cancer.
Some sciences give us absolute certainties and some don't.
So leaving children alone does not cause harm in your eyes... Because not every child left alone comes to harm
-
As I have said it is agreed by all authorities that smoking causes lung cancer... If you wish to contradict the worlds experts it's up to you..
As a non smoker the chances of getting lung cancer is 0.2...
As a heavy smoker it's 25%....moderate smoker 15%
I made the analogy that drunk drivers cause death on the road.... Perhaps you would disagree with that too
You could also liken it to playing Russian Roulette. Not everyone who does so gets a bullet in the head, but your likelihood of dying by gunshot wound is vastly increased if you indulge in the practice.
-
It is, also an accepted fact that exposing children to second hand smoke is considered child abuse
-
No scientist ever has claimed that ALL smokers get lung cancer. You are presenting a strawman argument.
Therefore it's not true to claim that 'smoking causes lung cancer' because sometimes it doesn't. I'm pointing out that some sciences can give us hard facts, others can't.
-
Therefore it's not true to claim that 'smoking causes lung cancer' because sometimes it doesn't. I'm pointing out that some sciences can give us hard facts, others can't.
so leaving children alone does not cause harm....glad weve got that one cleared up
-
so leaving children alone does not cause harm....glad weve got that one cleared up
Sometimes it does, as proved by this tragic case.
https://news.sky.com/story/two-year-old-boy-dies-after-falling-from-upstairs-window-in-liverpool-11561988
-
Therefore it's not true to claim that 'smoking causes lung cancer' because sometimes it doesn't. I'm pointing out that some sciences can give us hard facts, others can't.
Science has given us plenty of hard facts to prove that smoking seriously damages health. If you want to continue to live in denial that is your prerogative, but IMO it is an incredibly idiotic position to hold, and is somewhat akin to the arguments put up by the holocaust and evolution deniers I have encountered online.
-
Sometimes it does, as proved by this tragic case.
https://news.sky.com/story/two-year-old-boy-dies-after-falling-from-upstairs-window-in-liverpool-11561988
Where in that article does it say he was left alone? G-Unit would presumably argue that as not everyone dies falling out a first floor window then, falling out a first floor window does not cause death.
-
Sometimes it does, as proved by this tragic case.
https://news.sky.com/story/two-year-old-boy-dies-after-falling-from-upstairs-window-in-liverpool-11561988
but according to gunits way of thinking....leaving children alone doesnt cause harm........harm may happen...but it doesnt cause harm....i dont agree by the way
-
My aim on this thread was to explain that 'science' isn't a word to be used carelessly. There are many different subjects claiming to be sciences. At the top are the natural sciences which have discovered irrefutable facts about the world and at the bottom are those subjects which can only offer probabilities.
-
My aim on this thread was to explain that 'science' isn't a word to be used carelessly. There are many different subjects claiming to be sciences. At the top are the natural sciences which have discovered irrefutable facts about the world and at the bottom are those subjects which can only offer probabilities.
And so when Kate McCann describes the dog alerts as “not an exact science “ she was agreeing wholeheartedly with your position. What a lot of hot air for nothing!
-
Science has given us plenty of hard facts to prove that smoking seriously damages health. If you want to continue to live in denial that is your prerogative, but IMO it is an incredibly idiotic position to hold, and is somewhat akin to the arguments put up by the holocaust and evolution deniers I have encountered online.
It is unable to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.
Can I say through my epidemiology that the smoking CAUSED your particular case of lung cancer? Nope.
https://www.quora.com/Is-epidemiology-a-true-science
-
It is unable to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.
Can I say through my epidemiology that the smoking CAUSED your particular case of lung cancer? Nope.
https://www.quora.com/Is-epidemiology-a-true-science
science has proven smoking causes lung cancer....all your quote shows is that there are other causes too...
as Ive said...if you want to contradict just about every scientist /health professional in the world tahts your perogative...but it does call into question your understanding of evidence imo
-
It is unable to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.
Can I say through my epidemiology that the smoking CAUSED your particular case of lung cancer? Nope.
https://www.quora.com/Is-epidemiology-a-true-science
Note about the author of your cite:
“MJM, neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist, but I do smoke and I also studied graduate level statistics at U of PA’s Wharton School”
Mucho lol’age. @)(++(*
-
science has proven smoking causes lung cancer....all your quote shows is that there are other causes too...
as Ive said...if you want tp contradict just about every scientist /health professional in the world tahts your perogative...but it does call into question your understanding of evidence imo
I understand proof, which is the important concept here. It hasn't been proved that smoking causes lung cancer, no matter how many times you or anyone else says it has.
-
I understand proof, which is the important concept here. It hasn't been proved that smoking causes lung cancer, no matter how many times you or anyone else says it has.
it has.....smoking causes lung cancer...the evidence is overwhelming...it isnt responsible for every case of lung cancer...there are other causes.......
-
Note about the author of your cite:
“MJM, neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist, but I do smoke and I also studied graduate level statistics at U of PA’s Wharton School”
Mucho lol’age. @)(++(*
Are you suggesting that makes the person a liar? As a student of statistics they clearly know that statistics can't 'prove' cause and effect.
-
I understand proof, which is the important concept here. It hasn't been proved that smoking causes lung cancer, no matter how many times you or anyone else says it has.
Experts agree that tobacco is the single biggest avoidable cause of cancer in the world. [1,2] Smoking causes over a quarter (27 per cent) of cancer deaths in the UK and 3 in 20 cancer cases. [3,4]
And smoking doesn’t only cause cancer. It also causes tens of thousands of deaths each year in the UK from other conditions, including heart and lung problems. [3] Tobacco was responsible for more than 100 million deaths worldwide in the 20th Century.[5] The World Health Organisation has estimated that, if current trends continue, tobacco could cause a billion deaths in the 21st Century.[5]
Up to two thirds of all long-term smokers will be killed by their habit. [6–8] On average smokers lose around a decade of life compared with non-smokers. [1,3,7–9]
/www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/smoking-facts-and-evidence#smoking_facts0
-
it has.....smoking causes lung cancer...the evidence is overwhelming...it isnt responsible for every case of lung cancer...there are other causes.......
Why do more smokers who live in cities develop lung cancer than smokers who live in rural areas?
lung-cancer rates are much higher in cities than in rural areas, and the observation that urban males in general have higher lung-cancer mortality than rural males is undoubtedly correct.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/5/1175/666926
So why that difference? Could air quality play a role?
-
Why do more smokers who live in cities develop lung cancer than smokers who live in rural areas?
lung-cancer rates are much higher in cities than in rural areas, and the observation that urban males in general have higher lung-cancer mortality than rural males is undoubtedly correct.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/5/1175/666926
So why that difference? Could air quality play a role?
Ad I have said... Smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer...but it does cause lung cancer .. Until you understand that basic fact it's pointless taking the argument further
-
Are you suggesting that makes the person a liar? As a student of statistics they clearly know that statistics can't 'prove' cause and effect.
Who used the word liar? Not me, just amused me that you have chosen a quote from a very obvious non-expert (who smokes incidentally, so no bias there) to disprove the wealth of evidence from those far more qualified, which is kind of ironic considering your admonishment that we shouldn't be allowed to judge Grime as he is the expert and we aren't.
-
Why do more smokers who live in cities develop lung cancer than smokers who live in rural areas?
lung-cancer rates are much higher in cities than in rural areas, and the observation that urban males in general have higher lung-cancer mortality than rural males is undoubtedly correct.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/5/1175/666926
So why that difference? Could air quality play a role?
Smoking is not the ONLY cause of lung cancer as there are other causes of deadly chemicals getting into your lungs. Smoking is one of them, or do you dispute the presence of carcinogenic chemicals in cigarettes full stop?
-
Ad I have said... Smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer...but it does cause lung cancer .. Until you understand that basic fact it's pointless taking the argument further
Which calls the 'science' into question. The moon's gravitational pull is the cause, the ONLY cause of tidal movements on Earth. It's not 'one of the causes', there are no tides which aren't affected and it will always be the sole cause of the effect.
That level of certainty can never be achieved by statistical studies and, in my opinion, proof requires that level of certainty in science. Statistical 'facts' are about as scientific and reliable as the findings of a court of law. Therefore they can be wrong.
-
Which calls the 'science' into question. The moon's gravitational pull is the cause, the ONLY cause of tidal movements on Earth. It's not 'one of the causes', there are no tides which aren't affected and it will always be the sole cause of the effect.
That level of certainty can never be achieved by statistical studies and, in my opinion, proof requires that level of certainty in science. Statistical 'facts' are about as scientific and reliable as the findings of a court of law. Therefore they can be wrong.
Actually you are wrong about the moon being the sole cause of tidal movements on Earth.
-
Actually you are wrong about the moon being the sole cause of tidal movements on Earth.
seconded
-
Which calls the 'science' into question. The moon's gravitational pull is the cause, the ONLY cause of tidal movements on Earth. It's not 'one of the causes', there are no tides which aren't affected and it will always be the sole cause of the effect.
That level of certainty can never be achieved by statistical studies and, in my opinion, proof requires that level of certainty in science. Statistical 'facts' are about as scientific and reliable as the findings of a court of law. Therefore they can be wrong.
Im astonished by your lack of knowledge
-
Im astonished by your lack of knowledge
You can include me in that.
-
You can include me in that.
Lack of knowledge,or that davel thinks Gunit is lacking in knowledge.
-
Lack of knowledge,or that davel thinks Gunit is lacking in knowledge.
Lack of knowledge, of course.
-
Im astonished by your lack of knowledge
I'm astounded too! Two of the most faithful admirers and promoters of 'science' on the forum seem to accept as science anything which claims to be science. As such, they are believers rather than researchers imo.
-
I'm astounded too! Two of the most faithful admirers and promoters of 'science' on the forum seem to accept as science anything which claims to be science. As such, they are believers rather than researchers imo.
Oh my, such insulting deflection from the rather embarrassing faux pas about the tides. LOL.
-
Oh my, such insulting deflection from the rather embarrassing faux pas about the tides. LOL.
Oh was it? In what way was it a faux pas? I read that as opinion as it had no detail or cites.
-
Oh was it? In what way was it a faux pas? I read that as opinion as it had no detail or cites.
You wrote:
"The moon's gravitational pull is the cause, the ONLY cause of tidal movements on Earth. It's not 'one of the causes', there are no tides which aren't affected and it will always be the sole cause of the effect".
Was this then your opinion? If so, where was the IMO, and what was the point of posting it as you seemed to be trying to prove the absolute veracity of the science with your statement?
-
Oh was it? In what way was it a faux pas? I read that as opinion as it had no detail or cites.
It is a faux pas in as much as the sun has an effect on the tides
-
I'm astounded too! Two of the most faithful admirers and promoters of 'science' on the forum seem to accept as science anything which claims to be science. As such, they are believers rather than researchers imo.
and you are mistaken again...you seem to assume I accept anything that claims to be science...You have just made that up .
-
and you are mistaken again...you seem to assume I accept anything that claims to be science...You have just made that up .
Epidemiology is not without it's problems;
How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819404
-
Epidemiology is not without it's problems;
How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819404
Ironically this from your link is exactly my point about the testing of cadaver dogs:
We argue EBM's indiscriminate acceptance of industry-generated 'evidence' is akin to letting politicians count their own votes. Given that most intervention studies are industry funded, this is a serious problem for the overall evidence base. Clinical decisions based on such evidence are likely to be misinformed, with patients given less effective, harmful or more expensive treatments. More investment in independent research is urgently required. Independent bodies, informed democratically, need to set research priorities. We also propose that evidence rating schemes are formally modified so research with conflict of interest bias is explicitly downgraded in value.
though I don't see how the argument follows for smoking as the research into the link between smoking and cancer is counter-the smoking industry, not for it, and therefore not industry-generated.
-
Epidemiology is not without it's problems;
How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819404
No one has claimed it isn't... But Dolls research came under close scrutiny by the tobacco industry.... That's why if there was any doubt that smoking didn't cause cancer it would have ended in the courts
-
I've never known anyone who has given up smoking who does not say they feel much healthier.
One of the best laws ever passed was the introduction of the no smoking ban in public IMO.
-
I've never known anyone who has given up smoking who does not say they feel much healthier.
One of the best laws ever passed was the introduction of the no smoking ban in public IMO.
Nothing is more repellent to see than a pregnant woman smoking, it’s on a level with taking illegal drugs while pregnant imo. If it’s not outlawed yet, it should be imo!
-
And yet if you are a boomer or at least born in the 40s and 50s, you were almost certainly a passive smoker, right from conception.
How did we all survive ?
-
Nothing is more repellent to see than a pregnant woman smoking, it’s on a level with taking illegal drugs while pregnant imo. If it’s not outlawed yet, it should be imo!
Any pregnant woman now must be aware that smoking and drinking can have an adverse effect on the baby.
Before the smoking ban, I remember being in the cinema and hoping smokers did not sit in front of us.
-
And yet if you are a boomer or at least born in the 40s and 50s, you were almost certainly a passive smoker, right from conception.
How did we all survive ?
I dunno. I had two parents who smoked at the time and who used to leave me unattended as a baby to go drinking, so by rights I shouldn’t have made it past my first birthday, as the neglect should have done for me well before the cancer set in.
-
Any pregnant woman now must be aware that smoking and drinking can have an adverse effect on the baby.
Before the smoking ban, I remember being in the cinema and hoping smokers did not sit in front of us.
I used to do alot of unaccompanied long distance air travel as a child and teenager and sometimes had to sit in or near the smoking section of the plane, on every occasion I would have to throw up in a bag.
-
I used to do alot of unaccompanied long distance air travel as a child and teenager and sometimes had to sit in or near the smoking section of the plane, on every occasion I would have to throw up in a bag.
Smoking allowed on the plane?
-
Smoking allowed on the plane?
In the 70s, yes.
-
I used to do alot of unaccompanied long distance air travel as a child and teenager and sometimes had to sit in or near the smoking section of the plane, on every occasion I would have to throw up in a bag.
You've rememinfed me of a horrible memory of travelling to school and the bus (;not a school bus) began its journey near my home.
The smell of stale tobacco first thing in the morning was most unpleasant.
There used to be little ash holders on the back of each seat and they were not emptied regularly. ......
-
And yet if you are a boomer or at least born in the 40s and 50s, you were almost certainly a passive smoker, right from conception.
How did we all survive ?
That is a good question.
Do you remember the Falklands War? Fags issued to the armed forces in packets labelled up "smoking can seriously damage your health". Not too much mention of flights of Fuerza Aérea Argentina A4s spraying 20mm cannonshells all over the oche.
I think the smoking thingy is blatantly being used as a device here....I wonder why?
Do you feel better for giving up? How the &%$£ would I know what I would have felt like if I hadn't given up.... *%87
-
That is a good question.
Do you remember the Falklands War? Fags issued to the armed forces in packets labelled up "smoking can seriously damage your health". Not too much mention of flights of Fuerza Aérea Argentina A4s spraying 20mm cannonshells all over the oche.
I think the smoking thingy is blatantly being used as a device here....I wonder why?
Do you feel better for giving up? How the &%$£ would I know what I would have felt like if I hadn't given up.... *%87
It’s not difficult to work out. If you feel better after you’ve given up smoking than you felt before you gave up smoking then it’s highly likely smoking was affecting your well-being. What is *%87 about that?
-
Ironically this from your link is exactly my point about the testing of cadaver dogs:
We argue EBM's indiscriminate acceptance of industry-generated 'evidence' is akin to letting politicians count their own votes. Given that most intervention studies are industry funded, this is a serious problem for the overall evidence base. Clinical decisions based on such evidence are likely to be misinformed, with patients given less effective, harmful or more expensive treatments. More investment in independent research is urgently required. Independent bodies, informed democratically, need to set research priorities. We also propose that evidence rating schemes are formally modified so research with conflict of interest bias is explicitly downgraded in value.
though I don't see how the argument follows for smoking as the research into the link between smoking and cancer is counter-the smoking industry, not for it, and therefore not industry-generated.
There are other interested parties. What about the industries making such things as Nicorette?
-
There are other interested parties. What about the industries making such things as Nicorette?
What about them? Are there scientific studies extolling the benefits of nicotine addiction?
-
Even one of the leading cigarette manufacturers recognises the harm from cigarettes and is planning to give them up...
https://www.pmi.com/who-we-are/designing-a-smoke-free-future
-
What about them? Are there scientific studies extolling the benefits of nicotine addiction?
Doh! Industry generated studies. The makers of Nicorette benefit from people giving up smoking. It would be in their interest to fund research into the harmful effects of smoking. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
-
Doh! Industry generated studies. The makers of Nicorette benefit from people giving up smoking. It would be in their interest to fund research into the harmful effects of smoking. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
My lovely daughter in law lost her mum, aged 62 to small cell lung cancer.
She was a heavy smoker and if asked the question if you could go back in time which time you would choose, my daughter in law would choose the day her mum smoked her first cigarette and tell her mum not to do it!
-
It’s not difficult to work out. If you feel better after you’ve given up smoking than you felt before you gave up smoking then it’s highly likely smoking was affecting your well-being. What is *%87 about that?
Unless you have a pair of Z genes then you will finish up like it regardless.
-
Doh! Industry generated studies. The makers of Nicorette benefit from people giving up smoking. It would be in their interest to fund research into the harmful effects of smoking. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Then kindly provide a cite of Nicorette funded research into the effects of smoking.
-
Unless you have a pair of Z genes then you will finish up like it regardless.
???
-
My lovely daughter in law lost her mum, aged 62 to small cell lung cancer.
She was a heavy smoker and if asked the question if you could go back in time which time you would choose, my daughter in law would choose the day her mum smoked her first cigarette and tell her mum not to do it!
The children of those who die from alcohol related cirrhosis would like to go back and beg their parent not to have their first drink. Everyone dies from something, even those who eat healthily, exercise regularly and don't smoke or drink die. Some at a young age too.
-
???
Putting it simply if you have a pair of Z genes it is your destiny to wind up with a severe respiratory problem whether you smoke or not, whether you like it or not.
Clear now?
-
Putting it simply if you have a pair of Z genes it is your destiny to wind up with a severe respiratory problem whether you smoke or not, whether you like it or not.
Clear now?
"Z-gene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Z-gene or Z gene may refer to:
lacZ, a gene in the lac operon
Beta-galactosidase, the type of protein encoded by lacZ
Protein Z, a vitamin K-dependent glycoprotein involved in blood clotting
ZW sex-determination system"
Which one are you referring to?
-
Putting it simply if you have a pair of Z genes it is your destiny to wind up with a severe respiratory problem whether you smoke or not, whether you like it or not.
Clear now?
No, because it has absolutely nothing to do with my post re: how you will probably feel better after giving up smoking, especially I would think if you have underlying health issues which are exacerbated by smoking.
-
The children of those who die from alcohol related cirrhosis would like to go back and beg their parent not to have their first drink. Everyone dies from something, even those who eat healthily, exercise regularly and don't smoke or drink die. Some at a young age too.
Everyone dies of something is very true.
To inhale smoke into your lungs must have a detrimental effect on one's lungs.
As I said earlier the smoking ban was an excellent law.
My eldest son as a student started part time work in a bar in the late eighties.
Two nights he lasted, came in both nights stinking of smoke and with streaming eyes.
-
The children of those who die from alcohol related cirrhosis would like to go back and beg their parent not to have their first drink. Everyone dies from something, even those who eat healthily, exercise regularly and don't smoke or drink die. Some at a young age too.
And your point is...?
-
And your point is...?
That everyone dies!!
-
Everyone dies of something is very true.
To inhale smoke into your lungs must have a detrimental effect on one's lungs.
As I said earlier the smoking ban was an excellent law.
My eldest son as a student started part time work in a bar in the late eighties.
Two nights he lasted, came in both nighs stinking of smoke and with streaming eyes.
So he never went drinking or clubbing at the time? I worked as a barmaid in the NAAFI serving the Royal Highland Fusiliers. One night the manager closed the bar, gace us a ten minute break and then made the men form an orderly queue. Why? He was horrified at the level of abuse, intimidation and bad language we were being
subjected to by those who thought they should be served first. It's a tough job, bar work.
-
So he never went drinking or clubbing at the time? I worked as a barmaid in the NAAFI serving the Royal Highland Fusiliers. One night the manager closed the bar, gace us a ten minute break and then made the men form an orderly queue. Why? He was horrified at the level of abuse, intimidation and bad language we were being
subjected to by those who thought they should be served first. It's a tough job, bar work.
He never found the smoking in the clubs as bad as that particular pub.
None of his friends smoked, maybe that helped.
It was " an old man's pub" as they described it.
Heavy smoking there.
-
And your point is...?
In my opinion the drinkers will be next to be nagged; in fact it's already started.
-
In my opinion the drinkers will be next to be nagged; in fact it's already started.
Correct me if I’m wrong but your attitude seems to be - we’ve all got to die sometime so why bother looking after our bodies or listening to expert advice on health matters. In other words, smoke, drink and be happy for tomorrow you die (and possibly also the person into whose face you blew smoke all night long).
-
He never found the smoking in the clubs as bad as that particular pub.
None of his friends smoked, maybe that helped.
It was " an old man's pub" as they described it.
Heavy smoking there.
Old men who smoked heavily but were still dodging lung cancer. Lucky them.
-
Correct me if I’m wrong but your attitude seems to be - we’ve all got to die sometime so why bother looking after our bodies or listening to expert advice on health matters. In other words, smoke, drink and be happy for tomorrow you die (and possibly also the person into whose face you blew smoke all night long).
Life's an unbelievable privilege and we probably only get one go at it. The world's incredibly beautiful and every time I see a fabulous view or a wild animal I count my blessings. We are animals too, but we live unnaturally. Few of us would survive without our mod cons.
I think we care about ourselves too much and we expect too much. I lived on a remote Scottish Island for two years and a man died because his ulcer burst and the plane couldn't come to take him to hospital due to bad weather. I'd go back and live there again like a shot though.
-
Life's an unbelievable privilege and we probably only get one go at it. The world's incredibly beautiful and every time I see a fabulous view or a wild animal I count my blessings. We are animals too, but we live unnaturally. Few of us would survive without our mod cons.
I think we care about ourselves too much and we expect too much. I lived on a remote Scottish Island for two years and a man died because his ulcer burst and the plane couldn't come to take him to hospital due to bad weather. I'd go back and live there again like a shot though.
What’s stopping you? No internet?
-
Old men who smoked heavily but were still dodging lung cancer. Lucky them.
No, my son was eighteen "the old men" would be in their forties.lol.
Maybe some weren't fortunate and didn't dodge lung cancer!
-
No, my son was eighteen "the old men" would be in their forties.lol.
Maybe some weren't fortunate and didn't dodge lung cancer!
If any dodged it then it isn't always a cause. My father in law was a coal miner from leaving school until the age of 50, when he took voluntary redundancy. His health had been affected, like most miners and it gradually declined. At one stage he found he became breathless walking short distances. He came to visit us on our scottish island and was able to walk miles. It was due to the pure clean air, nothing else.
-
"Z-gene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Z-gene or Z gene may refer to:
lacZ, a gene in the lac operon
Beta-galactosidase, the type of protein encoded by lacZ
Protein Z, a vitamin K-dependent glycoprotein involved in blood clotting
ZW sex-determination system"
Which one are you referring to?
Maybe you are not looking in the right place.
-
No, because it has absolutely nothing to do with my post re: how you will probably feel better after giving up smoking, especially I would think if you have underlying health issues which are exacerbated by smoking.
Where do you fit in the pecking order of those involved in this particular research [the Z gene that is]?
Just to give us an idea of how reliable your "think" is likely to be.
-
Maybe you are not looking in the right place.
You are simply making things up and you have been caught out
There's a lap Z Gene used in metatse tracking... No relevance in th context you are using
-
You are simply making things up and you have been caught out
There's a lap Z Gene used in metatse tracking... No relevance in th context you are using
That being the case I am sure you will be delighted to advise the forum at large precisely what I am making up and how it was not relevant to respiratory problems.
Your post would have benefited from an "imo".
-
That being the case I am sure you will be delighted to advise the forum at large precisely what I am making up and how it was not relevant to respiratory problems.
Your post would have benefited from an "imo".
No I'll leave it to you
-
Maybe you are not looking in the right place.
Who knows? If you know why not openly tell us?
-
Who knows? If you know why not openly tell us?
Why do you need to know?
If you don't know how or where to find it neither you nor anyone else is in position to make such statements as "you are making it up and you have been caught out", with any authority.
Consider it an intelligence test.
One final clue: it is associated with a disease first identified in 1963.
-
Why do you need to know?
If you don't know how or where to find it neither you nor anyone else is in position to make such statements as "you are making it up and you have been caught out", with any authority.
Consider it an intelligence test.
One final clue: it is associated with a disease first identified in 1963.
You have my sympathy, if it's what I think it is.
-
Where do you fit in the pecking order of those involved in this particular research [the Z gene that is]?
Just to give us an idea of how reliable your "think" is likely to be.
What are you on about? Did I claim to be involved in research of the Z gene? That seems to be your speciality. Remember, I don’t play your games, soz-la. 8(>((
-
Why do you need to know?
If you don't know how or where to find it neither you nor anyone else is in position to make such statements as "you are making it up and you have been caught out", with any authority.
Consider it an intelligence test.
One final clue: it is associated with a disease first identified in 1963.
If we dont need to know why have you introduced it...
-
What are you on about? Did I claim to be involved in research of the Z gene? That seems to be your speciality. Remember, I don’t play your games, soz-la. 8(>((
1) No but you passed comment it. I was trying to establish your authority for the comment.
2) It certainly isn't davel's @)(++(*
-
If we dont need to know why have you introduced it...
Ooh, I know the answer to that one.... 8)--))
-
1) No but you passed comment it. I was trying to establish your authority for the comment.
2) It certainly isn't davel's @)(++(*
My authority for what comment about Z gene? I think you may be confused.
-
If we dont need to know why have you introduced it...
I didn't say you didn'r need to know.
My question was if you read it properly was "Why do you need to know how to find it".
-
I didn't say you didn'r need to know.
My question was if you read it properly was "Why do you need to know how to find it".
It seems that the introduction to the conversation of the elusive Z gene has been done with the sole intention of making us plebs look like uneducated morons. Am I right or am I right? @)(++(*
-
It seems that the introduction to the conversation of the elusive Z gene has been done with the sole intention of making us plebs look like uneducated morons. Am I right or am I right? @)(++(*
You're not wrong.... And it's failed miserably
-
Japanese men have lower rates of lung cancer than Western men, but they smoke just as heavily. No-one really knows why, but in my opinion the fact that Japanese cities are among the world's least polluted could be relevant.
-
Japanese men have lower rates of lung cancer than Western men, but they smoke just as heavily. No-one really knows why, but in my opinion the fact that Japanese cities are among the world's least polluted could be relevant.
Do you have cite fir lung cancer in Japanese... And the level of smoking
-
Do you have cite fir lung cancer in Japanese... And the level of smoking
https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-japanese-lung-cancer-smoking-paradox-2248990
Today, Japanese cities are among the world’s least polluted, according to the World Health Organization.
https://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/japans-pollution-diet/
-
https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-japanese-lung-cancer-smoking-paradox-2248990
Today, Japanese cities are among the world’s least polluted, according to the World Health Organization.
https://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/japans-pollution-diet/
Your first cite explains the likely explanations, strangely dropping pollution levels is not one of them.
-
https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-japanese-lung-cancer-smoking-paradox-2248990
Today, Japanese cities are among the world’s least polluted, according to the World Health Organization.
https://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/japans-pollution-diet/
I ask you for a cite because I'm interested... It seems there are lots if factors that may contribute to the difference.... Not just your less pollution... If indeed there is..
Different filters.. Diet... Later on-set of smoking seem to be what is considered to be of importance
-
I ask you for a cite because I'm interested... It seems there are lots if factors that may contribute to the difference.... Not just your less pollution... If indeed there is..
Different filters.. Diet... Later on-set of smoking seem to be what is considered to be of importance
For me, air pollution is the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be trying to ignore. I can;t help but notice that both business and individuals would be against clean air legislation.
-
For me, air pollution is the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be trying to ignore. I can;t help but notice that both business and individuals would be against clean air legislation.
Emissions in the UK have dropped markedly in the last 50 years so why do you conclude that everyone is against clean air legislation?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/681445/Emissions_of_air_pollutants_statistical_release_FINALv4.pdf
-
Emissions in the UK have dropped markedly in the last 50 years so why do you conclude that everyone is against clean air legislation?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/681445/Emissions_of_air_pollutants_statistical_release_FINALv4.pdf
So there is an association between lower rates of lung cancer and smoking. There's also an association between lower emissions and lower rates of lung cancer. I don't see how one association can be called a 'cause; and the other not.
There is action on clean air, but it's not been as forceful or as fast as the action against smoking imo. Japan has been much earlier and more forcefully on clean air but smoking rates are still high. Their rates of lung cancer have nevertheless been reduced.
Consumers have got the message about diesel emissions, but not everyone has. There are no diesel cars in Japan.
Car Lobby Should Listen To Clear Message Behind Falling Diesel Sales
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diesel-uk_uk_5a4fb711e4b089e14dba9819
-
So there is an association between lower rates of lung cancer and smoking. There's also an association between lower emissions and lower rates of lung cancer. I don't see how one association can be called a 'cause; and the other not.
There is action on clean air, but it's not been as forceful or as fast as the action against smoking imo. Japan has been much earlier and more forcefully on clean air but smoking rates are still high. Their rates of lung cancer have nevertheless been reduced.
Consumers have got the message about diesel emissions, but not everyone has. There are no diesel cars in Japan.
Car Lobby Should Listen To Clear Message Behind Falling Diesel Sales
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diesel-uk_uk_5a4fb711e4b089e14dba9819
Smoking rates in Japan have declined considerably in the last 20 years.
Smoking in Japan, though historically less restricted by law than in many other nations, has significantly changed in recent years. Tobacco use has been in nearly constant decline since 1996 and the decline has been mainly accelerating in recent years.[1] Per capita consumption in 2015 was 1,618 cigarettes, roughly 46% of the peak figure in 1977 and a number last seen in 1956.[2] In 2015, the adult smoking rate was 19.3%, 29.7% of Japanese men and 9.7% of Japanese women.[3] This is the lowest recorded figure since Japan Tobacco began surveying in 1965. As of July 2016, just over 20 million people smoked in Japan, though the nation remained one of the world's largest tobacco markets.[4]
i’m really not sure why you are using pollution as a defence for smoking. I’m not aware of any study anywhere that says smoking is the sole cause of cancer or that breathing in pollution over a long period is not extremely harmful to health.
-
Smoking rates in Japan have declined considerably in the last 20 years.
Smoking in Japan, though historically less restricted by law than in many other nations, has significantly changed in recent years. Tobacco use has been in nearly constant decline since 1996 and the decline has been mainly accelerating in recent years.[1] Per capita consumption in 2015 was 1,618 cigarettes, roughly 46% of the peak figure in 1977 and a number last seen in 1956.[2] In 2015, the adult smoking rate was 19.3%, 29.7% of Japanese men and 9.7% of Japanese women.[3] This is the lowest recorded figure since Japan Tobacco began surveying in 1965. As of July 2016, just over 20 million people smoked in Japan, though the nation remained one of the world's largest tobacco markets.[4]
i’m really not sure why you are using pollution as a defence for smoking. I’m not aware of any study anywhere that says smoking is the sole cause of cancer or that breathing in pollution over a long period is not extremely harmful to health.
Several points. Smoking isn't, as you seem to be now acknowledging, the only thing associated with lung cancer. As an adult I'm quite capable of deciding whether I should smoke or not, just as people decide whether to drink too much or overeat.
As far as I can see, smokers are the only group to have been singled out and bullied. GP's are paid to report how many of their patients smoke, so every time I visit them I'm questioned, regardless of why I'm there. Children bully their parents to stop. Passing strangers think they're entitled to glare at a smoker. Some even comment. I find all that unacceptable when I'm not breaking any laws. Not only that, but the 'science' on which it's all based isn't able to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Even if it could, the decision is still mine.
Japan's smoking rates have only recently fallen. Their lung cancer rates have been falling in line with their measures to clean up their air, which began much earlier than other countries.
-
Several points. Smoking isn't, as you seem to be now acknowledging, the only thing associated with lung cancer. As an adult I'm quite capable of deciding whether I should smoke or not, just as people decide whether to drink too much or overeat.
As far as I can see, smokers are the only group to have been singled out and bullied. GP's are paid to report how many of their patients smoke, so every time I visit them I'm questioned, regardless of why I'm there. Children bully their parents to stop. Passing strangers think they're entitled to glare at a smoker. Some even comment. I find all that unacceptable when I'm not breaking any laws. Not only that, but the 'science' on which it's all based isn't able to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Even if it could, the decision is still mine.
Japan's smoking rates have only recently fallen. Their lung cancer rates have been falling in line with their measures to clean up their air, which began much earlier than other countries.
The evidence that smoking causes cancer is overwhelming... You are, entitled to ignore it but imo it cannot be denied. Smoking around children is a form of child abuse according to experts
-
Several points. Smoking isn't, as you seem to be now acknowledging, the only thing associated with lung cancer. As an adult I'm quite capable of deciding whether I should smoke or not, just as people decide whether to drink too much or overeat.
As far as I can see, smokers are the only group to have been singled out and bullied. GP's are paid to report how many of their patients smoke, so every time I visit them I'm questioned, regardless of why I'm there. Children bully their parents to stop. Passing strangers think they're entitled to glare at a smoker. Some even comment. I find all that unacceptable when I'm not breaking any laws. Not only that, but the 'science' on which it's all based isn't able to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Even if it could, the decision is still mine.
Japan's smoking rates have only recently fallen. Their lung cancer rates have been falling in line with their measures to clean up their air, which began much earlier than other countries.
Kindly point to any post I have made during this discussion where I have claimed smoking is the ONLY cause of lung cancer. Quite the reverse - I have repeatedly said that it is not. Please amend your post accordingly. Carry on smoking, I fully approve of you doing so, just so long as it’s nowhere near me or any members of my family.
-
The evidence that smoking causes cancer is overwhelming... You are, entitled to ignore it but imo it cannot be denied. Smoking around children is a form of child abuse according to experts
Imagine the money being spent on cancer sticks that could be spent on more healthy pursuits with your kids. Someone who smoke 10 a day spends nearly £2k a year on their filthy habit.
-
The evidence that smoking causes cancer is overwhelming... You are, entitled to ignore it but imo it cannot be denied. Smoking around children is a form of child abuse according to experts
Is overeating around children a form of child abuse?
-
Is overeating around children a form of child abuse?
I'm not giving my opinion I've given the opinion of experts in the field... Do you think it's OK to smoke, around children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369587/
-
I'm not giving my opinion I've given the opinion of experts in the field... Do you think it's OK to smoke, around children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369587/
I don't know. There aren't any children in my house so it's not something I have thought about.
But do you think I ought to worry about the dog?
-
Is overeating around children a form of child abuse?
It used to be enough to feed a child. Now it's a minefield. Feeding them on the wrong foods and letting them get fat is probably child abuse by today's standards.
-
It used to be enough to feed a child. Now it's a minefield. Feeding them on the wrong foods and letting them get fat is probably child abuse by today's standards.
It is considered child abuse to allow your child to be obese.
It's horryfing to see so many grossly overweight children. IMO.
-
It used to be enough to feed a child. Now it's a minefield. Feeding them on the wrong foods and letting them get fat is probably child abuse by today's standards.
Yes it used to be OK to leave them in the chalet at Butlins
-
I'm not giving my opinion I've given the opinion of experts in the field... Do you think it's OK to smoke, around children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369587/
It would be difficult to enforce a law preventing anyone smoking at home in front of their child but it is against the law to smoke in your car if there is a child in the car.
-
I don't know. There aren't any children in my house so it's not something I have thought about.
But do you think I ought to worry about the dog?
The point is if anyone feels the right to criticise the McCann's child-care they should accept criticism of their own child-care.... And if they wish to ignore the overwhelming evidence available Re lung cancer they should accept criticism of the alerts for which there is little or no evidence to support
-
Yes it used to be OK to leave them in the chalet at Butlins
Yep. Chuck 'em a jam sandwich and leave 'em home alone. Most parents now realise that doing those things is frowned upon these days.
-
Yep. Chuck 'em a jam sandwich and leave 'em home alone. Most parents now realise that doing those things is frowned upon these days.
I agree... And most parents feel the same about smoking
-
It is considered child abuse to allow your child to be obese.
It's horryfing to see so many grossly overweight children. IMO.
Some parents show their love for their child by over feeding it. Others do it by denying the child anything except healthy foods. Both approaches are problematic in my opinion.
-
I agree... And most parents feel the same about smoking
Well the McCanns knew all about the healthy eating and no smoking advice, but seem to have overlooked the childcare bit.
-
Well the McCanns knew all about the healthy eating and no smoking advice, but seem to have overlooked the childcare bit.
No one is perfect.
-
No one is perfect.
I agree, and we all have our own priorities. Some people find it incomprehensible that a parent would smoke with a child present, others that a parent would leave a child home alone.
-
I'm not giving my opinion I've given the opinion of experts in the field... Do you think it's OK to smoke, around children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369587/
Given what I have seen recently, smoking around anyone is criminal imo. I was in a ward just last night filled with people gasping their last breaths on oxygen. I will never understand why people self harm in such a manner.
-
I agree, and we all have our own priorities. Some people find it incomprehensible that a parent would smoke with a child present, others that a parent would leave a child home alone.
I wouldn't do either
-
I agree, and we all have our own priorities. Some people find it incomprehensible that a parent would smoke with a child present, others that a parent would leave a child home alone.
And some parents would find it incomprehensible to do either and also feeding junk food to their child.
We didn't do any of those!
Pass me my halo. (&^&
-
Given what I have seen recently, smoking around anyone is criminal imo. I was in a ward just last night filled with people gasping their last breaths on oxygen. I will never understand why people self harm in such a manner.
There is a very non pc emoticon with a ciggie in its mouth on the panel of emoticons. @)(++(*
I've seen patients having to use oxygen getting out of their beds to go to the smoking areas in hospital, before the total ban was enforced. *%87
-
Given what I have seen recently, smoking around anyone is criminal imo. I was in a ward just last night filled with people gasping their last breaths on oxygen. I will never understand why people self harm in such a manner.
It's well known that smoking is addictive. It's also well known that people always think bad things won't happen to them. If everyone was sensible and careful no-one would drink and drive, neglect to fit sturdy locks and door chains on their homes and steering locks on their cars, climb mountains without the proper equipment etc etc etc.
-
And some parents would find it incomprehensible to do either and also feeding junk food to their child.
We didn't do any of those!
Pass me my halo. (&^&
We all have our own priorities. Junk food horrifies me too; I've eaten at McDonald's once. I'm a good cook, however, and many young people today aren't and their parents weren't. One of my grandchildren married a man who only drinks fizzy drinks and eats no vegetables or fruit. He has already had problems with kidney stones and has been told to cut out the fizzy drinks. Young girls are getting gall bladder problems which traditionally affected those who were 'fair, fat and forty'. People are experiencing liver problems at younger ages due to binge drinking. Still, as lomg as they don't smoke, eh?
-
It's well known that smoking is addictive. It's also well known that people always think bad things won't happen to them. If everyone was sensible and careful no-one would drink and drive, neglect to fit sturdy locks and door chains on their homes and steering locks on their cars, climb mountains without the proper equipment etc etc etc.
We accept drink driving is bad but you don't seem to want to accept smoking is harmfull
-
We all have our own priorities. Junk food horrifies me too; I've eaten at McDonald's once. I'm a good cook, however, and many young people today aren't and their parents weren't. One of my grandchildren married a man who only drinks fizzy drinks and eats no vegetables or fruit. He has already had problems with kidney stones and has been told to cut out the fizzy drinks. Young girls are getting gall bladder problems which traditionally affected those who were 'fair, fat and forty'. People are experiencing liver problems at younger ages due to binge drinking. Still, as lomg as they don't smoke, eh?
I don't believe I intimated that eating junk food is at all acceptable, nor binge drinking..... neither is smoking. IMO.
All of these have been given red light warning by health professionals.
Everyone has the right to accept the warnings or not.
-
We accept drink driving is bad but you don't seem to want to accept smoking is harmful
I've found that many smokers are in denial as to the consequences of smoking despite the warnings on the packets and despite seeing what it can do to others.
-
There was no such thing as Junk Food when my children were small. I never bought Cake and Biscuits or Fizzy Drinks because I couldn't afford to. Lucky me, you could say.
Nor was Smoking considered to be dangerous. I once stopped Smoking for six months, and it was hell. I never stopped wanting a cigarette. But I only did it because of the cost, although it wasn't all that high in those days.
So two years alone with three small children while my husband served Queen and Country when The Navy didn't give a damn about the likes of me. Oh, and no family even remotely interested.
I am firmly addicted to cigarettes and too old to care now. Smoking has had no serious affect on me after 65 years. I might reconsider if it ever does. My choice.
-
We accept drink driving is bad but you don't seem to want to accept smoking is harmfull
What I don't accept is this;
Smoking causes lung cancer
-
We all have our own priorities. Junk food horrifies me too; I've eaten at McDonald's once. I'm a good cook, however, and many young people today aren't and their parents weren't. One of my grandchildren married a man who only drinks fizzy drinks and eats no vegetables or fruit. He has already had problems with kidney stones and has been told to cut out the fizzy drinks. Young girls are getting gall bladder problems which traditionally affected those who were 'fair, fat and forty'. People are experiencing liver problems at younger ages due to binge drinking. Still, as lomg as they don't smoke, eh?
What a stupid last comment. If they smoke as well they are adding to their health problems, you still don’t get it do you?
-
What I don't accept is this;
Smoking causes lung cancer
What does cause lung cancer then?
-
What I don't accept is this;
Smoking causes lung cancer
According to all the experts it does
-
According to all the experts it does
G-Unit only defers to experts when it suits her
“The searches were directed and overseen by the two best experts the UK had, so anything amateurs have to say is irrelevant in my opinion”.
-
What does cause lung cancer then?
I have no idea, but would guess it's a mixture of things.
-
I have no idea, but would guess it's a mixture of things.
You have no idea but don’t accept smoking is a cause of lung cancer. I see.
-
Kindly point to any post I have made during this discussion where I have claimed smoking is the ONLY cause of lung cancer. Quite the reverse - I have repeatedly said that it is not. Please amend your post accordingly. Carry on smoking, I fully approve of you doing so, just so long as it’s nowhere near me or any members of my family.
G-Unit, did you do as I asked? If not, why not?
-
I have no idea, but would guess it's a mixture of things.
As I pointed out you are ignoring the evidence and think you know better than all the experts.... Perhaps it's just that you don't understand what is being said
Smoking causes lung cancer...it may not be the only cause but it certainly causes lung cancer
-
I have no idea, but would guess it's a mixture of things.
It's amazing... Doll followed 40,000 doctors over 20 years.... And you ...guess... He's wrong
-
You have no idea but don’t accept smoking is a cause of lung cancer. I see.
One of the contributing factors in some people possibly. 'The' cause? No.
-
One of the contributing factors in some people possibly. 'The' cause? No.
Once again you seem to be suggesting that I and all scientists have claimed that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer. Why do you keep doing this?
-
G-Unit, did you do as I asked? If not, why not?
Well?
-
One of the contributing factors in some people possibly. 'The' cause? No.
you may as well be saying the earth is flat.... you clearly don't understand the evidence re smoking and cancer...its not just lung cancer.
-
There is a very non pc emoticon with a ciggie in its mouth on the panel of emoticons. @)(++(*
I've seen patients having to use oxygen getting out of their beds to go to the smoking areas in hospital, before the total ban was enforced. *%87
That demonstrates rather poor training and supervision on someone's part.
Maybe you didn't mean it how it sounds?
-
That demonstrates rather poor training and supervision on someone's part.
Maybe you didn't mean it how it sounds?
It doesn't represent poor training
It's impossible to forbid a person to smoke
-
you may as well be saying the earth is flat.... you clearly don't understand the evidence re smoking and cancer...its not just lung cancer.
I understand that 'science' has different levels of reliability, evidence isn't proof and correlation isn't cause. 8)-)))
-
It doesn't represent poor training
It's impossible to forbid a person to smoke
I didn't say it was possible to stop someone smoking
If someone is wandering about using ambulatory oxygen or LTOT with a fag on in a hospital, as intimated, it demonstrates a poor level of training and/or supervision/enforcement.
-
I understand that 'science' has different levels of reliability, evidence isn't proof and correlation isn't cause. 8)-)))
it is an accepted FACT that smoking causes lung cancer... This is not my opinion but the opinion of the whole scientific community
-
I didn't say it was possible to stop someone smoking
If someone is wandering about using ambulatory oxygen or LTOT with a fag on in a hospital, as intimated, it demonstrates a poor level of training and/or supervision/enforcement.
No one suggested that... Look at the post again
-
I didn't say it was possible to stop someone smoking
If someone is wandering about using ambulatory oxygen or LTOT with a fag on in a hospital, as intimated, it demonstrates a poor level of training and/or supervision/enforcement.
One of my closest friends needed to wear an oxygen mask in bed whilst in hospital dying from an aids-related illness. He was also addicted to cigarettes and cannabis and as he couldn’t get out of bed he smoked whilst lying there with his oxygen mask still strapped to his face. His face went up in flames. Not nice.
-
IMO it is an accepted FACT that smoking causes lung cancer
Please can you cite this evidence of a direct cause.
-
Please can you cite this evidence of a direct cause.
The BMA states smoking causes lung cancer... As does every other scientific body associated with lung cancer..
If you want to ignore the evidence and the opinion of experts... Very good... It's, one of the few things there is absolute consensus on so your non acceptance of the fact is quite risible.. Imo
-
I see chain-smoking Baroness Trumpington died yesterday at the age of 96.
-
Please can you cite this evidence of a direct cause.
If you think Cancer Research UK is wrong here perhaps you can explain why
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-smoking-causes-cancer
-
I see chain-smoking Baroness Trumpington died yesterday at the age of 96.
Would you like to explain what you think that proves... Apart from.. IMO... You have little understanding of evidence..
Her death is anectdotal evidence... Not the real evidence supplied by doll.. You really should understand the difference between the two
-
I see chain-smoking Baroness Trumpington died yesterday at the age of 96.
David Bowie used to smoked 80 fags a day. He had a serious heart attack in his fifties and died before his 70th birthday. Doubtless there was no link whatsoever between his filthy habit and his early death.
-
IMO it is an accepted FACT that smoking causes lung cancer
It was an accepted FACT that a certain Emperor had new clothes until a small boy debunked it. The fact to which you refer won't be debunked because it won't be challenged. Correlation still doesn't prove cause though.
-
A load more well known smokers who died disease ridden before their 60th birthdays. Nothing to do with the ciggies, obviously
https://whyquit.com/whyquit/notables.html
-
One of my closest friends needed to wear an oxygen mask in bed whilst in hospital dying from an aids-related illness. He was also addicted to cigarettes and cannabis and as he couldn’t get out of bed he smoked whilst lying there with his oxygen mask still strapped to his face. His face went up in flames. Not nice.
Yeah well that's the way the cookie crumbles with oxygen enrichment. Presumably he ignored the warning notices and the staff could not be arsed ?
In the presence of pure oxygen everything is a fuel. Normally only the boots are left for some obscure reason
It's amazing that so many people can be so stupid around O2.
LBTR for you:
https://www.eiga.eu/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=3504&token=6817829efcb2cb378a0122ad8f41c9a14432b1e3
But then what would EIGA know about it?
-
Please can you cite this evidence of a direct cause.
I can cite expert opinion one after another that states smoking causes cancer... Can you quote one expert opinion that question it....no you cannot... Time to accept reality
-
It was an accepted FACT that a certain Emperor had new clothes until a small boy debunked it. The fact to which you refer won't be debunked because it won't be challenged. Correlation still doesn't prove cause though.
Why won’t they be challenged? There’s a multi billion pound industry that would plough millions into research to prove that cigarettes are harmless, in fact they already have. Why do you think they rolled over eventually?
-
Yeah well that's the way the cookie crumbles with oxygen enrichment. Presumably he ignored the warning notices and the staff could not be arsed ?
In the presence of pure oxygen everything is a fuel. Normally only the boots are left for some obscure reason
It's amazing that so many people can be so stupid around O2.
LBTR for you:
https://www.eiga.eu/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=3504&token=6817829efcb2cb378a0122ad8f41c9a14432b1e3
But then what would EIGA know about it?
That's why you turn the o2 off when you turn the defib on
-
David Bowie used to smoked 80 fags a day. He had a serious heart attack in his fifties and died before his 70th birthday. Doubtless there was no link whatsoever between his filthy habit and his early death.
Who knows? Who cares? Not I. I'm older and my heart and lungs are OK, despite my 'filthy' habit. You do like your emotive words, don't you?
-
Please can you cite this evidence of a direct cause.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/smoking-causes-hundreds-of-genetic-mutations/
That's a direct cause
-
Who knows? Who cares? Not I. I'm older and my heart and lungs are OK, despite my 'filthy' habit. You do like your emotive words, don't you?
Who cares... What a ridiculous thing to say.... Many children have been left alone and have not come to harm... That is not an argument to support leaving children
Smoking causes cancer... To suggest it doesn't is ignorant and irresponsible
-
Yeah well that's the way the cookie crumbles with oxygen enrichment. Presumably he ignored the warning notices and the staff could not be arsed ?
In the presence of pure oxygen everything is a fuel. Normally only the boots are left for some obscure reason
It's amazing that so many people can be so stupid around O2.
LBTR for you:
https://www.eiga.eu/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=3504&token=6817829efcb2cb378a0122ad8f41c9a14432b1e3
But then what would EIGA know about it?
He was a slave to his addiction to the end and as he was dying anyway I think he was past caring.
-
Who knows? Who cares? Not I. I'm older and my heart and lungs are OK, despite my 'filthy' habit. You do like your emotive words, don't you?
Cigarettes are filthy, that’s a fact. They emit toxic chemicals into the air, they leave ash on surfaces, they stain wallls and ceilings, they make soft furnishings smell bad, also clothes, hair and breath, they stain teeth yellow, as well as fingers, what is it about them you like exactly?
-
https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/smoking-causes-hundreds-of-genetic-mutations/
That's a direct cause
Not according to the researchers;
As the researchers say, their genetic analysis isn't able to tell for certain the mechanism by which these changes occur, or know whether other behaviours associated with smoking, such as drinking alcohol, may be involved in the changes.
"Although we cannot exclude roles for covariate behaviours of smokers or differences in the biology of cancers arising in smokers compared with non-smokers, smoking itself is most plausibly the cause of these differences."
-
Not according to the researchers;
As the researchers say, their genetic analysis isn't able to tell for certain the mechanism by which these changes occur, or know whether other behaviours associated with smoking, such as drinking alcohol, may be involved in the changes.
"Although we cannot exclude roles for covariate behaviours of smokers or differences in the biology of cancers arising in smokers compared with non-smokers, smoking itself is most plausibly the cause of these differences."
I can't seem to copy and paste on my phone at the moment. Read the whole article particularly the piiece at the end which supports what I have said
-
Who cares... What a ridiculous thing to say.... Many children have been left alone and have not come to harm... That is not an argument to support leaving children
Smoking causes cancer... To suggest it doesn't is ignorant and irresponsible
Why should I care? I leave all that to the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' and the 'holier than thou' types. Like Bowie I will live my life my way as I always have. I've enjoyed it and I will cope if I die of an illness which some say is 'caused' by smoking. Dead is dead whatever the 'cause'.
-
Cigarettes are filthy, that’s a fact. They emit toxic chemicals into the air, they leave ash on surfaces, they stain wallls and ceilings, they make soft furnishings smell bad, also clothes, hair and breath, they stain teeth yellow, as well as fingers, what is it about them you like exactly?
Did I say I liked it? I don't like it if I have none. That's how addiction works.
-
Why should I care? I leave all that to the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' and the 'holier than thou' types. Like Bowie I will live my life my way as I always have. I've enjoyed it and I will cope if I die of an illness which some say is 'caused' by smoking. Dead is dead whatever the 'cause'.
Funny how the Madeleine McCann case has attracted so many “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” and “holier than thou” types, isn’t it? Your fatalism and who cares attitude regarding smoking and its effect on yourself and family is somewhat at odds with your “practically perfect parent” persona, IMO.
-
Did I say I liked it? I don't like it if I have none. That's how addiction works.
That’s really sad.
-
Funny how the Madeleine McCann case has attracted so many “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” and “holier than thou” types, isn’t it? Your fatalism and who cares attitude regarding smoking and its effect on yourself and family is somewhat at odds with your “practically perfect parent” persona, IMO.
Yes, identifiable by their use of emotive language imo. I seem to have acquired a reputation as a perfect parent because I don't approve of leaving toddlers home alone. If that's all it takes I expect most parents can be described as perfect.
-
If you think Cancer Research UK is wrong here perhaps you can explain why
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-smoking-causes-cancer
I have asked Davel and maybe you wish to help, to provide a cite for the direct causal relationship between smoking and cancer. The fact that you can’t suggests that there is confusion between statistical analysis of illnesses and possible causes and an identified scientific cause.
-
I have asked Davel and maybe you wish to help, to provide a cite for the direct causal relationship between smoking and cancer. The fact that you can’t suggests that there is confusion between statistical analysis of illnesses and possible causes and an identified scientific cause.
The only confusion on display on this thread is from those who seem hellbent on suggesting that smoking is not one of the causes of cancer. Your demand reminds me a little bit on YE Creationists demand for proof of evolution, and a fossil that proves it occurred. They will reject every piece of scientific evidence you dig up. Do you also not accept that smoking causes cancer? Or are you only joining in to support a fellow sceptic?
-
Yes, identifiable by their use of emotive language imo. I seem to have acquired a reputation as a perfect parent because I don't approve of leaving toddlers home alone. If that's all it takes I expect most parents can be described as perfect.
It’s not just that though is it? It’s everything the McCanns have said or done that you find so appalling vis a vis their parenting, and that this forum is full of.
-
Yes, identifiable by their use of emotive language imo. I seem to have acquired a reputation as a perfect parent because I don't approve of leaving toddlers home alone. If that's all it takes I expect most parents can be described as perfect.
You are showing more lacknif knowledge in ad much that I would say every postervon her disagrees with leaving children alone
-
If we should dismiss smoking as a cause of lung cancer because of the alleged lack of scientific proof, how much easier to dismiss the dog alerts in PdL, as they too are unproven with no direct causal relationship between the alerts and the alleged odour. Glad we’ve got that one sorted anyway.
-
It seems despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that allows experts to state that smoking causes lung cancer. It is rejected by sceptics... But when it comes to showing the McCann's guilt... If it's written in the Sun... It's good enough... LOL
-
I wonder why there is no demand for scientific proof that leaving children alone for 30 minute periods while they are asleep in beds causes them injury or death, and that it is just accepted as a given, whereas smoking and lung cancer not so much?
-
Please can you cite this evidence of a direct cause.
This is pancreatic cancer... I'll find one on lungs later..
Pancreatic carcinomas from cigarette smokers harbor more mutations than do carcinomas from never smokers. The types and patterns of these mutations provide insight into the mechanisms by which cigarette smoking causes pancreatic cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669837/
This shows the mechanism of how smoking causes cancer and hence a direct cause
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925633/
Here's the one for lung cancer
-
There are some very silly irrelevant arguments being used on this thread now. My purpose was to demonstrate that using the word 'science' as a measure or recommendation isn't meaningful.
It's not meaningful because sciences differ. Some can discover certainties like 'if A then B'. In other words if A happens it will always be followed by B; A causes B.
Others can only say that A is related to B, because B doesn't always follow A. Therefore A can't be said to cause B.
One study of dog handlers and their dogs have discovered that some of those dogs were reported as having alerted when they shouldn't have. The conclusion was that the handlers either claimed that their dog alerted when it didn't or that the handler unconsciously cued the dog to alert.
Assuming that the study was properly organised it identified a problem with dog handlers. Why the handlers reacted as they did is unknown. Whether these problems occur in the field is unknown. Whether all dog handlers would have reacted similarly is also unknown. No firm conclusions can be reached from this 'scientific' study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
-
There are some very silly irrelevant arguments being used on this thread now. My purpose was to demonstrate that using the word 'science' as a measure or recommendation isn't meaningful.
It's not meaningful because sciences differ. Some can discover certainties like 'if A then B'. In other words if A happens it will always be followed by B; A causes B.
Others can only say that A is related to B, because B doesn't always follow A. Therefore A can't be said to cause B.
One study of dog handlers and their dogs have discovered that some of those dogs were reported as having alerted when they shouldn't have. The conclusion was that the handlers either claimed that their dog alerted when it didn't or that the handler unconsciously cued the dog to alert.
Assuming that the study was properly organised it identified a problem with dog handlers. Why the handlers reacted as they did is unknown. Whether these problems occur in the field is unknown. Whether all dog handlers would have reacted similarly is also unknown. No firm conclusions can be reached from this 'scientific' study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
I dont think you are in a position to accuse others of silly argumnets....you seem to want to denigrate science when scientific means is how we evaluate many things. The test you referred to showed there are a lot of unknowns re the dog alerts as you have admitted.....thats why the alerts themselves have no evidential value.
you say there was a problem with handler and how they reacted... i certainly think there was a problem with the way grime raected and claimed teh alert to CC....was that just the tip of the iceburg...who knows. I dont think there was a cadaver in 5a...and i dont feel Grimes contribution has any significance
Grime was asked in his rogatory...'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''..
why did he not confirm that the alert was not a concrete alert of detection of cadaver...I feel grime was in part responsible for the confusion amongst the PJ re the alerts
-
There are some very silly irrelevant arguments being used on this thread now. My purpose was to demonstrate that using the word 'science' as a measure or recommendation isn't meaningful.
It's not meaningful because sciences differ. Some can discover certainties like 'if A then B'. In other words if A happens it will always be followed by B; A causes B.
Others can only say that A is related to B, because B doesn't always follow A. Therefore A can't be said to cause B.
One study of dog handlers and their dogs have discovered that some of those dogs were reported as having alerted when they shouldn't have. The conclusion was that the handlers either claimed that their dog alerted when it didn't or that the handler unconsciously cued the dog to alert.
Assuming that the study was properly organised it identified a problem with dog handlers. Why the handlers reacted as they did is unknown. Whether these problems occur in the field is unknown. Whether all dog handlers would have reacted similarly is also unknown. No firm conclusions can be reached from this 'scientific' study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
A silly argument is citing on old (ex) smoker dying in her 90s to somehow prove that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
-
I dont think you are in a position to accuse others of silly argumnets....you seem to want to denigrate science when scientific means is how we evaluate many things. The test you referred to showed there are a lot of unknowns re the dog alerts as you have admitted.....thats why the alerts themselves have no evidential value.
you say there was a problem with handler and how they reacted... i certainly think there was a problem with the way grime raected and claimed teh alert to CC....was that just the tip of the iceburg...who knows. I dont think there was a cadaver in 5a...and i dont feel Grimes contribution has any significance
Grime was asked in his rogatory...'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''..
why did he not confirm that the alert was not a concrete alert of detection of cadaver...I feel grime was in part responsible for the confusion amongst the PJ re the alerts
You still seem determined to ignore the FACT that not all sciences are the same.
-
You still seem determined to ignore the FACT that not all sciences are the same.
Could you provide a cite where I have claimed all sciences are the same... That's a ridiculous statement to make
-
The BMA states smoking causes lung cancer... As does every other scientific body associated with lung cancer..
If you want to ignore the evidence and the opinion of experts... Very good... It's, one of the few things there is absolute consensus on so your non acceptance of the fact is quite risible.. Imo
For once I totally agree with you. @)(++(*
-
For once I totally agree with you. @)(++(*
Sacre Bleu! &%%6
-
He was a slave to his addiction to the end and as he was dying anyway I think he was past caring.
Maybe so. The bit I am curious about is that hospital staff would have allowed naked flames near pure O2 as it is contrary to their training and SOPs.
-
Maybe so. The bit I am curious about is that hospital staff would have allowed naked flames near pure O2 as it is contrary to their training and SOPs.
He was in a private room, with a steady stream of visitors. I don't think they were patted down before being allowed access, nor was there a nurse on hand monitoring visits 24/7. Believe me, these days from personal experience pretty much the only way to attract the attention of a nurse when you're lying in bed unable to get up IS to set fire to your own face. Not that I ever went quite that far mind....
-
Could you provide a cite where I have claimed all sciences are the same... That's a ridiculous statement to make
Which 'science' is it that you constantly refer to then?
Without proper scientific tests its erroneous to claim the alerts have any reliability...they simply have not been properly tested.
it's important to point out the dogs, are not scientifically tested
the alerts have never been scientifically tested
that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement
-
Which 'science' is it that you constantly refer to then?
Without proper scientific tests its erroneous to claim the alerts have any reliability...they simply have not been properly tested.
it's important to point out the dogs, are not scientifically tested
the alerts have never been scientifically tested
that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement
Has the penny finally dropped, or are you quoting Davel, in which case you might want to put the above statements in quotation marks.
-
Is any of this pertinent to personal choice?
I am shocked by the need to use this in defence of The McCanns. I thought better of McCann Supporters.
-
He was in a private room, with a steady stream of visitors. I don't think they were patted down before being allowed access, nor was there a nurse on hand monitoring visits 24/7. Believe me, these days from personal experience pretty much the only way to attract the attention of a nurse when you're lying in bed unable to get up IS to set fire to your own face. Not that I ever went quite that far mind....
Studies in the US have placed medical errors as the third largest cause of deaths, outstripped only by heart disease and cancer. I have seen two family members in grave danger due to a misdiagnosis and a late diagnosis. The lesson I have learned is to stay away from medicine if I can and stay close to any relative who is hospitalised in order to make sure they're treated well. Our local hospital isn't 'failing' either. It's very good but no hospital is perfect and staff aren't perfect either.
-
Is any of this pertinent to personal choice?
I am shocked by the need to use this in defence of The McCanns. I thought better of McCann Supporters.
It seems to me that the McCann's personal choices are to be applauded, but other people's aren't.
-
Has the penny finally dropped, or are you quoting Davel, in which case you might want to put the above statements in quotation marks.
They are all statements made by Davel.
-
Is any of this pertinent to personal choice?
I am shocked by the need to use this in defence of The McCanns. I thought better of McCann Supporters.
In my opinion people can smoke til their hearts pack up and their lungs blacken, in private and not around me or my family. I do however think that smoking around your own children a) sets a terrible example and b) poses health risks for them, so for that reason when people who do this slag off the McCanns for their "child neglect" they really should cast out the beam from their own eye first, before claiming to put their children's interests above their own at every opportunity.
On top of that, I think that people who deny the link between smoking and serious illnesses and conditions are self-deluding and able to persuade themselves of anything by denying the science and picking and choosing which bits of it they want to believe in.
I don't know why you consider pointing any of this out as shocking behaviour on my part?
-
They are all statements made by Davel.
Then they should be in quotation marks because it looks on first reading like you are making these statements. IMO
-
Studies in the US have placed medical errors as the third largest cause of deaths, outstripped only by heart disease and cancer. I have seen two family members in grave danger due to a misdiagnosis and a late diagnosis. The lesson I have learned is to stay away from medicine if I can and stay close to any relative who is hospitalised in order to make sure they're treated well. Our local hospital isn't 'failing' either. It's very good but no hospital is perfect and staff aren't perfect either.
And yet you were all for Kate McCann rushing her twins to hospital immediately on the night of the 3rd. In my experience health professionals above a certain pay grade do a fantastic job on the whole, but when it comes down to daily care and monitoring on wards, well that's certainly a different matter, and the things I witnessed in my two week stay will live me forever, and not in a good way.
-
And yet you were all for Kate McCann rushing her twins to hospital immediately on the night of the 3rd. In my experience health professionals above a certain pay grade do a fantastic job on the whole, but when it comes down to daily care and monitoring on wards, well that's certainly a different matter, and the things I witnessed in my two week stay will live me forever, and not in a good way.
Despite clear tummy pain and vomiting of faeces pediatricians diagnosed an Intussusception of the bowel as possible concussion. A casualty registrar failed to diagnose a burst appendix and sepsis. I think they're quite well paid.
-
Which 'science' is it that you constantly refer to then?
Without proper scientific tests its erroneous to claim the alerts have any reliability...they simply have not been properly tested.
it's important to point out the dogs, are not scientifically tested
the alerts have never been scientifically tested
that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement
I'm referring to scientific method... Which is common to all sciences
-
Despite clear tummy pain and vomiting of faeces pediatricians diagnosed an Intussusception of the bowel as possible concussion. A casualty registrar failed to diagnose a burst appendix and sepsis. I think they're quite well paid.
How long had the registrar been on duty for... My son has been known to work 24 hrs non stop....no wonder there are so many mistakes... It isn't the doctors fault... It's the system they are forced to work under
-
Despite clear tummy pain and vomiting of faeces pediatricians diagnosed an Intussusception of the bowel as possible concussion. A casualty registrar failed to diagnose a burst appendix and sepsis. I think they're quite well paid.
That was your unfortunate experience, mine was more positive, with a brilliant surgeon and physios. Where does that leave us?
-
Dear God. This is all getting more awful. I don't understand what any of you are talking about any more. No one has to come to my house. In fact, please don't.
This has nothing to do with Madeleine McCann or anyone's thoughts on the subject.
I remain a McCann Supporter by virtue of Logistics. Prove me wrong on that one, but you can't.
I don't care what sort of people The McCanns are, but I am certain sure that they are better parents than I ever was. Should that have been necessary, of course. Which it probably wasn't.
-
It seems to me that the McCann's personal choices are to be applauded, but other people's aren't.
Cite for this... It appears both you and Eleanor are mixed up.... Perhaps you both need a cigarette
I've never seen any poster applaud the McCann's decision to leave the children... You again seem to be making things up
-
Studies in the US have placed medical errors as the third largest cause of deaths, outstripped only by heart disease and cancer. I have seen two family members in grave danger due to a misdiagnosis and a late diagnosis. The lesson I have learned is to stay away from medicine if I can and stay close to any relative who is hospitalised in order to make sure they're treated well. Our local hospital isn't 'failing' either. It's very good but no hospital is perfect and staff aren't perfect either.
That's quite interesting.... You are clearly anti doctors.... Might explain your views on this case
Doctors make lots of mistakes.... In hospitals often due to being asked to work ridiculous hours... What's the solution
-
That's quite interesting.... You are clearly anti doctors.... Might explain your views on this case
Doctors make lots of mistakes.... In hospitals often due to being asked to work ridiculous hours... What's the solution
Presumably resultant from a voluntary opting out of the 48 hour Working Time Directive.
-
Presumably resultant from a voluntary opting out of the 48 hour Working Time Directive.
Thers no voluntary about it
-
Dear God. This is all getting more awful. I don't understand what any of you are talking about any more. No one has to come to my house. In fact, please don't.
This has nothing to do with Madeleine McCann or anyone's thoughts on the subject.
I remain a McCann Supporter by virtue of Logistics. Prove me wrong on that one, but you can't.
I don't care what sort of people The McCanns are, but I am certain sure that they are better parents than I ever was. Should that have been necessary, of course. Which it probably wasn't.
You all get on with it. You all horrify me.
Don't worry Eleanor. I imagine John will delete all this.
-
Don't worry Eleanor. I imagine John will delete all this.
I hope he doesn't, but if it's considered not relevant to the case then it could be moved to a different forum.
-
Cite for this... It appears both you and Eleanor are mixed up.... Perhaps you both need a cigarette
I've never seen any poster applaud the McCann's decision to leave the children... You again seem to be making things up
Don't chance your arm with me. I left my children alone under similar circumstances and have never denied it. It is documented, and has frequently been thrown at me.
You are now proving what an intransigent person you are. Which is really pissing me of. Especially with a direct accusation against me personally.
None of my thoughts on the subject have ever influenced my Moderating. But then I have never done a lot of that.
-
Don't chance your arm with me. I left my children alone under similar circumstances and have never denied it. It is documented, and has frequently been thrown at me.
You are now proving what an intransigent person you are. Which is really pissing me of. Especially with a direct accusation against me personally.
None of my thoughts on the subject have ever influenced my Moderating. But then I have never done a lot of that.
I couldn't agree more.
-
And all because Kate McCann described the dog alerts as "not an exact science" - shame on the woman for saying something so flagrantly idiotic!!
-
I'm referring to scientific method... Which is common to all sciences
Thank you. Ar last something we can discuss. Please define 'scientific method',
-
And all because Kate McCann described the dog alerts as "not an exact science" - shame on the woman for saying something so flagrantly idiotic!!
No. it's all because I wanted those who keep dragging 'science' and 'scientific testing' into their posts to explain what exactly they mean.
-
Don't chance your arm with me. I left my children alone under similar circumstances and have never denied it. It is documented, and has frequently been thrown at me.
You are now proving what an intransigent person you are. Which is really pissing me of. Especially with a direct accusation against me personally.
None of my thoughts on the subject have ever influenced my Moderating. But then I have never done a lot of that.
I think most parents make mistakes from time to time. In this case I think it was the parents’ attitude to their mistake that causes debate.
-
I think most parents make mistakes from time to time. In this case I think it was the parents’ attitude to their mistake that causes debate.
Snip
We had not seen the McCanns since Thursday, when suddenly they appeared by the pool. The surreal limbo of the past two days suddenly snapped back into painful, awful realtime.
It was a shock: the physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening - I felt it as a physical blow.
Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves in to the angular manifestation of a silent scream.
I thought I might cry and turned so that she wouldn't see.
Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line. Some people, including Jes, tried to offer comfort. Some gave them hugs. Some stared at their feet, words eluding them. We all wondered what to do. That was the last time we saw Gerry and Kate.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
-
No. it's all because I wanted those who keep dragging 'science' and 'scientific testing' into their posts to explain what exactly they mean.
And yet in your opening post you seemed rather puzzled by her comment:
“I wonder what she meant? Assuming she understood the different kinds of science, would she know what an exact science is? “
-
I think most parents make mistakes from time to time. In this case I think it was the parents’ attitude to their mistake that causes debate.
I don’t think so. I think their “attitude” was caused by the hostile reaction to their mistake from members of the public and the media.
-
I think most parents make mistakes from time to time. In this case I think it was the parents’ attitude to their mistake that causes debate.
You have no idea whatsoever how the McCann's feel about their mistake
-
Don't chance your arm with me. I left my children alone under similar circumstances and have never denied it. It is documented, and has frequently been thrown at me.
You are now proving what an intransigent person you are. Which is really pissing me of. Especially with a direct accusation against me personally.
None of my thoughts on the subject have ever influenced my Moderating. But then I have never done a lot of that.
Water of a ducks back... I too left my children alone.... And it was the wrong thing to do..
I don't know how and why you work out I'm intransigent... Perhaps you could have the decency to explain..
-
Thank you. Ar last something we can discuss. Please define 'scientific method',
I don't need to... Google it
scientific method
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
"criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"
That's it... It's not what I understand by scientific method... It's what scientists understand ss scientific method
-
I couldn't agree more.
Don't ever make assumptions. You are stupid if you do.
-
Thank you. Ar last something we can discuss. Please define 'scientific method',
The fact that you asked me to define scientific method indicates you had no idea it existed
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=scientific+method&oq=scie&aqs=chrome.0.35i39j69i61l3j69i65j69i57.4976j0j7&client=ms-android-tmobile-gb&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Have a look at some of those
-
Keep calm people ?>)()<
-
Keep calm people ?>)()<
Don’t you know that’s bad for your health?
-
Is any of this pertinent to personal choice?
I am shocked by the need to use this in defence of The McCanns. I thought better of McCann Supporters.
could you tell us what you think is being used in defence of the mccanns...and why you wish to criticise mccann supporters
-
This thread was started on the basis of a throwaway remark made by Kate that the dogs' expertise was not an exact science.
Knowing that there are scientific studies past and contemporaneous regarding the skills attributed to VRD's I searched and was surprised to find that all is not as we have been led to accept.
For example human noses are much more effective appendages than we ever thought and can equal that of other mammals such as dogs.
Apparently the misconception can be traced back to "Paul Broca, a 19th century brain surgeon and anthropologist as the culprit for the falsehood that humans have an impoverished olfactory system" when indeed our noses are a lot more discerning than we have been led to believe.
Nothing at all wrong with the size of our human olfactory bulbs ... there's a relief!
The human sense of smell: It's stronger than we think
May 11, 2017, Rutgers University
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-human-stronger.html
-
This thread was started on the basis of a throwaway remark made by Kate that the dogs' expertise was not an exact science.
Knowing that there are scientific studies past and contemporaneous regarding the skills attributed to VRD's I searched and was surprised to find that all is not as we have been led to accept.
For example human noses are much more effective appendages than we ever thought and can equal that of other mammals such as dogs.
Apparently the misconception can be traced back to "Paul Broca, a 19th century brain surgeon and anthropologist as the culprit for the falsehood that humans have an impoverished olfactory system" when indeed our noses are a lot more discerning than we have been led to believe.
Nothing at all wrong with the size of our human olfactory bulbs ... there's a relief!
The human sense of smell: It's stronger than we think
May 11, 2017, Rutgers University
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-human-stronger.html
I'd have like to see how he calculated this: ""The fact is the sense of smell is just as good in humans as in other mammals, like rodents and dogs." Humans can discriminate maybe one trillion different odors, he says,
-
I don't need to... Google it
scientific method
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
"criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"
That's it... It's not what I understand by scientific method... It's what scientists understand ss scientific method
Yes the scientific method as invented and used by natural science. It has helped physics, astronomy, chemistry, earth-science and biology to learn about the natural world.
The question is, can sciences which don't study the natural world use the scientific method as successfully as the natural sciences have?
-
Yes the scientific method as invented and used by natural science. It has helped physics, astronomy, chemistry, earth-science and biology to learn about the natural world.
The question is, can sciences which don't study the natural world use the scientific method as successfully as the natural sciences have?
scientific method can be applied to most things...the recent test that the dogs failed was an example so the answer is a definite yes....Stockham himself...grimes superior in the US was calling for more scientific testing
I also notice in the court case Grime was described as a contractor for the FBI...is there anything to support grimes claim he was THe special advisor to the FBI
Before trial, Lane moved to exclude the cadaver dog evidence, contending in part that it was not admissible under MRE 702. At the evidentiary hearing, Stockham testified that he had started a science-based victim recovery dog program for the FBI.
caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
perhaps you dont agree with stockham
-
scientific method can be applied to most things...the recent test that the dogs failed was an example so the answer is a definite yes....Stockham himself...grimes superior in the US was calling for more scientific testing
I also notice in the court case Grime was described as a contractor for the FBI...is there anything to support grimes claim he was THe special advisor to the FBI
Before trial, Lane moved to exclude the cadaver dog evidence, contending in part that it was not admissible under MRE 702. At the evidentiary hearing, Stockham testified that he had started a science-based victim recovery dog program for the FBI.
caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
perhaps you dont agree with stockham
Scientists don't all agree that scientific method as developed in the natural sciences can be applied to most things. There are drawbacks, particularly when studying people.
The problem of social sciences is that you cannot vary any factor you like holding everything else constant.....You just therefore can't apply the experimental method stricto censu.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limitations-of-scientific-methods-in-social-sciences
-
Scientists don't all agree that scientific method as developed in the natural sciences can be applied to most things. There are drawbacks, particularly when studying people.
The problem of social sciences is that you cannot vary any factor you like holding everything else constant.....You just therefore can't apply the experimental method stricto censu.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limitations-of-scientific-methods-in-social-sciences
Ive quoted Stockham... Do you realise who he is... An expert in canine training...Grimes superior..... You are quoting some unknown from Quora talking about social sciences....totally mraningless
-
Ive quoted Stockham... Do you realise who he is... An expert in canine training...Grimes superior..... You are quoting some unknown from Quora
You quoted someone talking about something being 'science-based'. I'm trying to explain the difficulties of using the scientific method in all sciences.
-
You quoted someone talking about something being 'science-based'. I'm trying to explain the difficulties of using the scientific method in all sciences.
I'm not talking about someone... I'm talking about Grimes boss.. Stockham... Who is recommending science based tests for the dogs... Isn't it about time you just accepted you are, wrong
-
Scientists don't all agree that scientific method as developed in the natural sciences can be applied to most things. There are drawbacks, particularly when studying people.
The problem of social sciences is that you cannot vary any factor you like holding everything else constant.....You just therefore can't apply the experimental method stricto censu.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limitations-of-scientific-methods-in-social-sciences
The author of the article you are quoting has a baccalaureate in social sciences... I think that's, equivalent to an A level...
Is this your idea of supporting evidence
-
I'd have like to see how he calculated this: ""The fact is the sense of smell is just as good in humans as in other mammals, like rodents and dogs." Humans can discriminate maybe one trillion different odors, he says,
Interesting though ... and does everything we think we know stem from the 19th century brain surgeon and anthropologist Paul Broca?
-
You have no idea whatsoever how the McCann's feel about their mistake
I know how they appeared to feel.
-
I know how they appeared to feel.
You know how they appeared to you... That's nothing more than opinion
-
I know how they appeared to feel.
How did they appear to feel to you?
-
Interesting though ... and does everything we think we know stem from the 19th century brain surgeon and anthropologist Paul Broca?
Considering that we all interface on a daily basis with structures, infrastructure, mechanical equipment and devices much of which has been designed and constructed on inexact science[empirical] don't you think it quaint that there is all this worry about whether or not a pooch's sniffing ability has been tested by exact science?
US aviation deploy about 2000 teams and the USAF train 300 units per annum and don't seem too worried ?
-
Considering that we all interface on a daily basis with structures, infrastructure, mechanical equipment and devices much of which has been designed and constructed on inexact science[empirical] don't you think it quaint that there is all this worry about whether or not a pooch's sniffing ability has been tested by exact science?
US aviation deploy about 2000 teams and the USAF train 300 units per annum and don't seem too worried ?
If you think what they use them for you would understand why they are not worried
-
If you think what they use them for you would understand why they are not worried
I didn't think it important.
Suppose, O Master, you explain it in terms that an unworthy student can understand?
-
Interesting though ... and does everything we think we know stem from the 19th century brain surgeon and anthropologist Paul Broca?
If "Humans can discriminate maybe one trillion different odors" I'd say one's whole brain would be tied up remembering odours.
Or do they mean can one on a taste test distinguish between two flavours, i.e That one has had more pepper added, that one has more salt and so on. How fine can those increments be?
As Grime said his dogs couldn't distinguish between decomposed piglets and human cadaver. If they can't separate something as common as that how would anyone get to the level of a trillion?
Ok it maybe the dog has a limited vocabulary and can't vocalise the actual nuances of the pig cadaver.
I don't know how many times I've been faced with some meat and I haven't the foggiest what it is.
-
I didn't think it important.
Suppose, O Master, you explain it in terms that an unworthy student can understand?
You've introduced these dogs twice.... So tell us, what they are used for....
Good to see you showing some respect by the way
-
I'm not talking about someone... I'm talking about Grimes boss.. Stockham... Who is recommending science based tests for the dogs... Isn't it about time you just accepted you are, wrong
I don't see science based tests being mentioned, just 'a science-based victim recovery dog program' whatever that means.
Please don't tell me I'm wrong. Correlation isn't causation. The natural sciences are the only ones that can prove cause.
-
Considering that we all interface on a daily basis with structures, infrastructure, mechanical equipment and devices much of which has been designed and constructed on inexact science[empirical] don't you think it quaint that there is all this worry about whether or not a pooch's sniffing ability has been tested by exact science?
US aviation deploy about 2000 teams and the USAF train 300 units per annum and don't seem too worried ?
Why should they be worried? The only people who should be worried are those whose future liberty and well being depends on the bark of a dog which may or may not be accurate.
-
I don't see science based tests being mentioned, just 'a science-based victim recovery dog program' whatever that means.
Please don't tell me I'm wrong. Correlation isn't causation. The natural sciences are the only ones that can prove cause.
You are wrong and have been dhown to be wrong several times on this thread.. Stockam talks about a, science based programme... Double blind trials.. Yes you are wrong
-
You've introduced these dogs twice.... So tell us, what they are used for....
Good to see you showing some respect by the way
"dogs this is davel; davel this is dogs; woof woof sosidges
Is the Master unable to answer the question?
I fear then I must leave your academy. My late master, Robert Townsend, advised me to be wary of a master who appeared to walk on water. He said "Go find a wiser master and save yourself a load of grief".
So taking Master Robert's advice I just opened my front door, walked 100 metres down the drive bunged out a stick and it bounced off several wiser masters. Well it was chucking out time at the local hostelry.
-
"dogs this is davel; davel this is dogs; woof woof sosidges
Is the Master unable to answer the question?
I fear then I must leave your academy. My late master, Robert Townsend, advised me to be wary of a master who appeared to walk on water. He said "Go find a wiser master and save yourself a load of grief".
So taking Master Robert's advice I just opened my front door, walked 100 metres down the drive bunged out a stick and it bounced off several wiser masters. Well it was chucking out time at the local hostelry.
Let's start here... If the dogs are used for security... Why would they need to be scientifically tested... So how many of these dogs are used for security
-
Interesting article about cadaver dogs here
http://www.chicora.org/pdfs/Cadaver%20Dogs%20in%20Cemeteries.pdf
CADAVER DOGS IN CEMETERIES – WHAT IS THE SCIENCE?
While the use of scent detection dogs (commonly known as cadaver dogs) is common, especially in search and recovery operations, their use involves considerable ambiguity since the approach has NEVER been rigorously tested and found to have scientific validity.
The reputation of scent detection dogs was dealt a significant blow when one of the best known handlers, Sandra Anderson, was sentenced in 2004 for planting evidence and making false statements to authorities. For a number of years she had planted human remains, fibers, and items stained with her own blood, representing the items as evidence.
The Institute for Canine Forensics (ICF) certifies dogs, called Historical Human Remains Detection (HHRD) dogs, specifically trained to find only “old” remains. Their website, however, provides no information on the training protocols, testing, or blind test results.
What scientific tests are available to help evaluate the usefulness of scent detection dogs?
In 1999 Debra Komar published a study in the prestigious Journal of Forensic Sciences that analyzed and interpreted the effectiveness of eight dog and handler teams using “blind searches.” These are trials in which the handlers did not know how many items to search for or where they were hidden. This eliminates any possibility that the handlers were intentionally or unintentionally influencing their dogs. The study revealed considerable variation, with success rates ranging from 55% to 95%.
In 2003 A.E. Lasseter and his colleagues at the University of Alabama used four teams to identify 10 fresh and skeltonized remains buried from 1 to 2 feet below ground. They found overall poor results. Only two of the alerts correctly signaled the location of remains. In contrast there were six false alerts and 22 no alerts, revealing significant problems in detection.
Re-examining all of the scientific data and tests available, Debra Komar and renowned bioanthropologists Jane E. Buikstra comment, “the level of training and accuracy of both the dog and the handler fluctuates dramatically, and excessive claims of ability or success should be viewed with caution . . . . For example, the ability of dogs to differentiate human from animal bone has likely been untested, and so remains must be examined by the consulting anthropologist.”
BOTTOM LINE
While it is possible that some dog and handler teams may be successful at identifying “old” burials, there are no peer reviewed, published tests that document this ability.
The studies that are available reveal considerable variation. These studies clearly reveal that weather, soil conditions, training, and dog-handler communication all affect accuracy and reliability.
OTHER, MORE RELIABLE CHOICES
There are other, far more reliable techniques to determine if burials are present, including ground penetrating radar, the use of a penetrometer, and archaeological examination.
Each of these techniques is based on firm science. Limitations are firmly established, as are appropriate protocols.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
How you go about determining if burials are present matters because the effort itself or actions afterward (such as placing new burials) may result in legal action and require those who identified graves – or failed to identify graves – to serve as expert witnesses in court. The court will expect the science of the technique to be clearly established and widely recognized by the professional community. The court will expect a clear statement of the process and clearly defined protocols. Otherwise, the approach may be branded “junk science” and disallowed – leaving you with no legal legs to stand on.
-
"dogs this is davel; davel this is dogs; woof woof sosidges
Is the Master unable to answer the question?
I fear then I must leave your academy. My late master, Robert Townsend, advised me to be wary of a master who appeared to walk on water. He said "Go find a wiser master and save yourself a load of grief".
So taking Master Robert's advice I just opened my front door, walked 100 metres down the drive bunged out a stick and it bounced off several wiser masters. Well it was chucking out time at the local hostelry.
In Buddhist Tantric philosophy... The initial step is the ability to recognise the master
-
There are so many alerts that they cannot be ignored and won't be!
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/guardian030614a.jpg)
-
You are wrong and have been dhown to be wrong several times on this thread.. Stockam talks about a, science based programme... Double blind trials.. Yes you are wrong
So Stockham talks about rigorous testing of cadaver dogs. I thought that would happen and I imagine Eddie was subjected to those too to prevent false positives.
-
Why should they be worried? The only people who should be worried are those whose future liberty and well being depends on the bark of a dog which may or may not be accurate.
Yes, I suppose explosive detection dogs are pretty vital.
-
So Stockham talks about rigorous testing of cadaver dogs. I thought that would happen and I imagine Eddie was subjected to those too to prevent false positives.
Stockham talks about starting s science based training programme and double blind testing.... He doesn't say eddie was the subject of rigourous testing
-
Yes, I suppose explosive detection dogs are pretty vital.
And we all know how hit and miss they can be.
-
Yes, I suppose explosive detection dogs are pretty vital.
They are if their alerts can be relied upon
-
You are wrong and have been dhown to be wrong several times on this thread.. Stockam talks about a, science based programme... Double blind trials.. Yes you are wrong
I have looked at this. Apparently America was lagging behind the UK in that there was no system of testing and certifying detection dogs. Dog handler evidence was often not admissible in court as a result. That's why Stockham, as part of SWGDOG was interested in developing training and testing methods which could be used to certify the dogs for court use.
https://swgdog.fiu.edu/about-us/explanation_of_best_practices.pdf
It was only in 2009 that the group issued best practice guidelines;
To provide recommended best practice guidelines for training, certification and documentation pertaining to human remains (cadaver) detection canines on land and /or water. The following guidelines pertain to land and water or a combination of both applications.
For successful certification, the canine team shall achieve a 90% confirmed alert
rate with no false alerts
https://swgdog.fiu.edu/approved-guidelines/sc8_human_remains.pdf
I imagine Grime and Morse found Stockham's tests a walk in the park because Grime had been tested and certified in the UK as a matter of course. The UK were ahead of the US in this area, as all their dogs were police dogs and were trained, tested and certified in accordance with ACPO guidelines. The US tended to use civilian teams who needed bringing up to standard.
-
I have looked at this. Apparently America was lagging behind the UK in that there was no system of testing and certifying detection dogs. Dog handler evidence was often not admissible in court as a result. That's why Stockham, as part of SWGDOG was interested in developing training and testing methods which could be used to certify the dogs for court use.
https://swgdog.fiu.edu/about-us/explanation_of_best_practices.pdf
It was only in 2009 that the group issued best practice guidelines;
To provide recommended best practice guidelines for training, certification and documentation pertaining to human remains (cadaver) detection canines on land and /or water. The following guidelines pertain to land and water or a combination of both applications.
For successful certification, the canine team shall achieve a 90% confirmed alert
rate with no false alerts
https://swgdog.fiu.edu/approved-guidelines/sc8_human_remains.pdf
I imagine Grime and Morse found Stockham's tests a walk in the park because Grime had been tested and certified in the UK as a matter of course. The UK were ahead of the US in this area, as all their dogs were police dogs and were trained, tested and certified in accordance with ACPO guidelines. The US tended to use civilian teams who needed bringing up to standard.
Acpo guidelines were anectdotal as we have discussed before.. Pretty well all your post is opinion.... The alerts have not been accepted in an English court...
Do you have any cites for what you are claiming... No you dont
-
Acpo guidelines were anectdotal as we have discussed before.. Pretty well all your post is opinion.... The alerts have not been accepted in an English court...
Do you have any cites for what you are claiming... No you dont
Grime and his dogs were complying with Stockham's requirements before Stockham and his colleagues issued their guidelines (2009) let alone had them implemented.
'Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling'programme to ensure best practice is maintained.......
Training records are maintained and are available if required.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
The cites I provided make it clear that the Americans were playing catch-up. The UK were keeping training records and licencing their dogs before the Americans were.
-
Grime and his dogs were complying with Stockham's requirements before Stockham and his colleagues issued their guidelines (2009) let alone had them implemented.
'Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling'programme to ensure best practice is maintained.......
Training records are maintained and are available if required.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
The cites I provided make it clear that the Americans were playing catch-up. The UK were keeping training records and licencing their dogs before the Americans were.
No they don't... What training records does grime have.... Remember it was, all anectodal
Stockham wanted to set up a proper scientific set up wth double blind.. That was far ahead of what grime had done
-
No they don't... What training records does grime have.... Remember it was, all anectodal
Stockham wanted to set up a proper scientific set up wth double blind.. That was far ahead of what grime had done
I think it's ridiculous to question whether Grime had training records. Why on earth would her offer to provide something he didn't have?
I've no idea what you mean by anecdotal.
All British police dogs, irrespective of the discipline they are trained in, must be licensed to work operationally. To obtain the license they have to pass a test at the completion of their training, and then again every year until they retire, which is usually at about the age of 8. The standards required to become operational are laid down by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods and standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog
-
I think it's ridiculous to question whether Grime had training records. Why on earth would her offer to provide something he didn't have?
I've no idea what you mean by anecdotal.
All British police dogs, irrespective of the discipline they are trained in, must be licensed to work operationally. To obtain the license they have to pass a test at the completion of their training, and then again every year until they retire, which is usually at about the age of 8. The standards required to become operational are laid down by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods and standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog
This is what I mean by anecdotal
Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.
It's all been discussed before... The bottom line is no evidential reliability
-
The problem with double blind tests involving handlers and dogs is that the handlers can think. They know that they are being tested and will assume that the tests are aimed at discovering whether they and their dogs ate satisfactory. That's enough to cause tension and anxiety in the handlers before the test begins.
Dogs are very good at picking up on human feelings, so we now have tension in both handler and dog.
Simply by withholding information about what is going on, the test has created a situation of uncertainty which wouldn't normally exist.
-
The problem with double blind tests involving handlers and dogs is that the handlers can think. They know that they are being tested and will assume that the tests are aimed at discovering whether they and their dogs ate satisfactory. That's enough to cause tension and anxiety in the handlers before the test begins.
Dogs are very good at picking up on human feelings, so we now have tension in both handler and dog.
Simply by withholding information about what is going on, the test has created a situation of uncertainty which wouldn't normally exist.
So the dogs cannot be properly tested... End of... So the alerts, are not supported by evidence... Because the snowflake handlers get nervous.. Lol
-
This is what I mean by anecdotal
Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.
It's all been discussed before... The bottom line is no evidential reliability
All it means is that the handler's case reports were taken into account in addition to the results of the tests set by the assessor over the course of a week.
In my opinion these teams were adequately monitored and tested. When my husband was a serving soldier his fitness was tested annually over half a day.
-
So the dogs cannot be properly tested... End of... So the alerts, are not supported by evidence... Because the snowflake handlers get nervous.. Lol
OK. I'm retiring from this discussion now because I've made the points I wanted to make which are;
Saying 'scientific' isn't meaningful because there are different kinds of science.
'Scientific method' also varies depending which science is being looked at.
Statistical studies can't reveal causes, they can only find associations.
-
OK. I'm retiring from this discussion now because I've made the points I wanted to make which are;
Saying 'scientific' isn't meaningful because there are different kinds of science.
'Scientific method' also varies depending which science is being looked at.
Statistical studies can't reveal causes, they can only find associations.
No evidential value or reliability
-
OK. I'm retiring from this discussion now because I've made the points I wanted to make which are;
Saying 'scientific' isn't meaningful because there are different kinds of science.
'Scientific method' also varies depending which science is being looked at.
Statistical studies can't reveal causes, they can only find associations.
Scientific has a meaning in the English language and therefore it is meaningful. Saying the dog alerts are not an exact science is exactly right, maybe some people needed reminding of that fact, after all some people think the dogs know everything and are never wrong.
-
Why should they be worried? The only people who should be worried are those whose future liberty and well being depends on the bark of a dog which may or may not be accurate.
Which is the most dangerous in your opinion.
The empirical woof of a dog or the empirical design of a machine?
I am trying to establish the objection the common scientific method of "empirical and iterative" as I posted about a fortnight ago.
Science according to this forum science appears not to extend much beyond smoking tobacco and its effect on the incidence of lung cancer in human, drug trials and woofin' bleedin' dogs.
No wonder courts dislike science and expert witnesses and do law.
-
Let's start here... If the dogs are used for security... Why would they need to be scientifically tested... So how many of these dogs are used for security
To sniff things out.
Think of security in its wider sense.
-
Which is the most dangerous in your opinion.
The empirical woof of a dog or the empirical design of a machine?
I am trying to establish the objection the common scientific method of "empirical and iterative" as I posted about a fortnight ago.
Science according to this forum science appears not to extend much beyond smoking tobacco and its effect on the incidence of lung cancer in human, drug trials and woofin' bleedin' dogs.
No wonder courts dislike science and expert witnesses and do law.
No idea what you’re on about, sorry.
-
Which is the most dangerous in your opinion.
The empirical woof of a dog or the empirical design of a machine?
I am trying to establish the objection the common scientific method of "empirical and iterative" as I posted about a fortnight ago.
Science according to this forum science appears not to extend much beyond smoking tobacco and its effect on the incidence of lung cancer in human, drug trials and woofin' bleedin' dogs.
No wonder courts dislike science and expert witnesses and do law.
Law does evidence... It's a huge part of the law....forensic evidence may well rely on science to support it
Machines as in speed cameras are accepted... As long as their reliability is backed by testing.... Not by a Copper saying me and my mate test it every six months and it's always bang on
-
To sniff things out.
Think of security in its wider sense.
And the dogs are judged on what they sniff out.....hard evidence.... Not what the handler claims they are sniffing
-
And the dogs are judged on what they sniff out.....hard evidence.... Not what the handler claims they are sniffing
It wasn't the handler making the claims but the PJ officers.
-
OK. I'm retiring from this discussion now because I've made the points I wanted to make which are;
Saying 'scientific' isn't meaningful because there are different kinds of science.
'Scientific method' also varies depending which science is being looked at.
Statistical studies can't reveal causes, they can only find associations.
I've used scientific in the context of scientific method... Therefore it's meaning is clear
Scientific method is a way of testing whose principles can be readily applied to many many things
As regards statistics ...it depends on the evidence they are based upon as to whether cause can be established...
-
It wasn't the handler making the claims but the PJ officers.
It certainly was.... Officers, according to Harrison who had been briefed by Grime that the alerts, had no evidential value... Why did they ignore the expert
-
No idea what you’re on about, sorry.
That comes as no surprise.
-
That comes as no surprise.
Nor does your reply above... 8(>((
-
I've used scientific in the context of scientific method... Therefore it's meaning is clear
Scientific method is a way of testing whose principles can be readily applied to many many things
As regards statistics ...it depends on the evidence they are based upon as to whether cause can be established...
Empirical and iterative in many cases.
-
Empirical and iterative in many cases.
empirical
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
-
empirical
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
That's the one.
-
That's the one.
Some would argue that science is the new word for "magic" or "miracle" just because people do not understand the evidence does not mean it does not exist!
Pharmacists of olde worlde would have been burned as witches!
Moving on...