“Cell phones do not cause cancer” and other Science-Money fairy tales. (as in “Smoking does not cause cancer”)

Advertisements
Photo by Spiros Kakos from Pexels

According to studies, cell phones do not cause cancer. (1)

So reassuring.

In the same way the old days science was not sure whether smoking caused cancer, or was even convinced that in some cases it was even beneficial! (2)

On one side, there is the ridiculously slow pace at which science crawled towards the obvious (yes, if you put smoke in you something bad will happen). Even though smoking was around for years, official science starting to realize the connection between smoking and cancer only in the 1950’s. (3) (6) Surely science tries to reach a certain degree of certainty to say something, but this should never conflict with common sense.

“Putting tar inside your organism causes nothing”.

Does that make sense?

“Putting radiation inside your brain causes nothing”.

Does that make sense?

Scientists should be clear when making statements and they should clarify what the lack of evidence for correlation does not necessarily mean that there is no correlation. Not clarifying this is certainly not a result of stupidity. After all, scientists should know better right?

And now we come to the other interesting point: How science and scientists can be manipulated by money. It had happened before with smoking. (4) Scientists of respectable positions we also part of a specific “council” for research on the subject of smoking with clean instructions not to actually find any connections with cancer. (5) (7)

You may say that these scientists did not represent science.

But what is science except the scientists who practice it?

Would you say that Pope does not represent Catholicism?

Many claim that science is all about methodologically and systematically analyzing something. Any errors related to its practice do not relate to science per se. It is a beautiful childish opinion. And as all childish opinions, it is very appealing. But it is wrong.

Not because a bad scientist represents science.

This is indeed false.

But exactly because science is all about the systematic analysis of things. This makes it void of any ethical obligation to follow any common sense outside its own methodological constraints, thus leaving room for research which claims that “we do not know” even in the face of the obvious. And there is where money comes in.

You see, no scientist will even admit that he is doing wrong or insufficient research. But what he will never admit is that given the proper statistics, almost anything can be supported. Give some funds on top of those inherent limitations of science and statistics and you will get this research paper stating “No evidence for cell phones related to cancer”.

At the end, a slight connection will be found.

Then some more serious evidence will ‘arise’.

And at the end, scientists will be certain that cell phones are dangerous.

Not sure it will be like that?

Well, you may be right.

Like the scientists who claimed that things heavier than air will never fly. (8) Now we laugh at those scientists. But their analysis and conclusions were not to be laughed at.

At the end, you are allowed to believe what you wish.

Put a cell phone next to your head and speak for hours.

Are you willing to testify for what you believe?

Do you believe that science puts anything in the line for you? And yet, you believe in science and not in those who did actually put everything in line for you. (who are they? find out yourself)

Science today is cut from ethics and the obvious ever since it claimed was against religion. Because religion is the art of the obvious and the ethical. You can read Harmonia Philosophica for more on that, but in any case it is easy to see that in the case of smoking science feel in the trap of its own convictions. Seeking certainty is not always the way to go when lives are at stake. And taking money while doing it does not make it look prettier. It happened with smoking. It had happen before (yes, science has been about money and corruption for many years now). And the same story seems to be repeated now with cell phones. Radiation had been constantly seen as a source of problems when it comes to mutations, but now for a magical reason there seem to be “no evidence” for problems.

Yes, science continually questions itself. And that is a good thing. For science.

But life and common sense cannot question themselves.

Yes science needs and seeks certainty.

But life does not offer certainty. (let alone the fact that science has anyway proved that it will never find it)

Yes science is not the experiments done by Mengele.

But he did make those experiments in the context of science. (and papers were published and research – from which you may even benefit today – was conducted based on them)

And humanity cannot accept that.

Yes scientists are just humans.

So why not admit that instead of playing God?

Yes science is cold and systemic.

But life should not be anything like that.

Yes, you can “prove” with proper assumptions and statistics that infinite parallel universe exist.

But smoking killed people down here, in this universe.

Hang up the phone.

Wait for science to decide.

Take a walk.

Do you need science to tell you that?

PS. And yes, there is research which shows that cell phones are linked to cancer. See here for one recent example.

Global Thermonuclear War: It has ALREADY happened! (tip: it was called “testing”)

Advertisements

We are taught to be afraid of Chernobyl…

We are taught to be glad Kennedy saved the world…

But should we be afraid of Chernobyl?

Should we be glad that Kennedy “saved the world”?

Would it be the first time we are taught wrong?

We are all (or at least were) afraid of a nuclear holocaust. We we terrified of a nuclear war and the effects it might have on us and on Earth.

But wait a minute!

Didn’t that ALREADY HAPPEN?

Let me explain with a different story…

It is about a painting and how it was analyzed by experts to finally find that it was a fake (expect a future post on Harmonia Philosophica on 27/2/2014 about that even from a philosophical point of view).

How did they do it?

Simple: Scientists determined a painting is fake due to the C-14 in its canvas.

Carbon 14 is a radioactive variation of carbon, and because plants pick up both types through photosynthesis, all living organisms — cotton plants included — have the same ratio of carbon 14 to stable carbon as the atmosphere. But a series of nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s spiked this normally consistent ratio.

“After 1955 the level of radiocarbon in the atmosphere, and thus in living organisms, almost doubled in about 10 years,” Pier Andrea Mandò, head of the Florence division of the INFN, explained in a statement. (1)

See?

Not yet?

Think again: How many nuclear bombs would fall in the event of a global thermonuclear war? (not a random choice of words, for the ones who are “good movies”-literate)

10?

40?

100?

500?

Maybe 500 is too much. After the initial dozen bombs there would be noone left to through more bombs anyway… right?

Now do you want to know how many nuclear bombs were detonated by “advanced” nations on the planet during Cold War (source) ?

  • US: 1,149
  • USSR: 969
  • UK: 45
  • France: 210
  • China: 45
  • India: 6
  • Pakistan: 7
  • Israel: ? (> 1)
  • North Korea: 3
  • TOTAL: 2435

And let’s not forget the TWO BOMBS that fell on Japan during WWII (and maybe a small failed nuclear test by the Nazis?)

Now think again!

Are you really afraid of nuclear war?

Or are you part of the aftermath?

And they had you believe that YOU destroyed the ozone layer by… spraying!

Or that cancer has started spiking due to… well, nothing. (it actually took years for the UK to recognize illness effects on veterans due to nuclear tests – see here)

Most of the times the truth is hovering in front of you. And then it suddenly detonates on your face in a huge flash leaving you no chance to even notice it was there…

Conspiracies for Fun are serious sometimes.

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%