Yes, that’s not good enough. Rodents are not humans. Then you have to deal with the dose, the setting, the difference in healthy lifespan, and a million other factors that differ from actual people in the real world.
On top of all of that, this paper did no actual research - it just mined existing literature for any chemicals with at least one paper saying that it did something cancer-related in mice or other assays.
Based on prior experience, almost certainly a substantial proportion of these papers are crap, but they don’t make any effort to figure that out (because that would be science, and therefore hard.)
+1. On the opposite side of cancer research - We're already pretty good at eliminating cancer in rodents, it just doesn't translate well to humans. Animal testing might have done more harm than good for human healthcare in the long run. People stick to animal models out of a "we've done it this way forever" way of thinking, not because it still makes sense.
This problem with things like this is that the real science is extremely costly to do and the usage of chemicals across the entirety of our environment is exploding borderline exponentially with time and obviously these things we didn't evolve to tolerate and low and behold so many new health issues are just skyrocketing in incidence.
All “A is linked to B” tells you, and science has shown this time and time again, is that enough academics believe A is linked to B to do a number of hokum studies and show you the ones that came up with any correlation at all while burying all the ones that didn’t.
That's the other extreme, not "the alternative." Science is knowing fewer things, but knowing them well (to a high degree of certainty). Making stuff up is "knowing" more things but being uncertain and/or wrong. In between the two, there's a whole spectrum. I'm willing to "know" a few more things, but know them less well. Like being pretty sure pesticide exposure is not decreasing my risk of cancer for example.
The other thing is, I would be willing to be presumptively wrong about something like this, for the sake of safety. If someone wants to add a chemical to "the environment" (a commons) then I think the burden of proving it's safe falls on them.
> Making stuff up is "knowing" more things but being uncertain and/or wrong.
No, making stuff up is making stuff up. Uncertainty is what we get when we run an experiment and have some level of doubt about the outcome. What the OP proposes is to instead just do stuff to solve problems that haven’t been demonstrated, by doing things that haven’t been shown to have any effect. That’s not science - it’s religion.
Attempts to get around this by invoking the “precautionary principle”, or using broadly negative Bayesian priors, are basically just religion dressed in a lab coat. For example:
> Like being pretty sure pesticide exposure is not decreasing my risk of cancer
Completely made up. Even if you wanted to point to this paper (however bad), as evidence, it doesn't defend your specific claim.
If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, and in the process mows my flower garden down, things change a bit though don't they. That is a closer analogy. In that case I am going to complain, and maybe also tell everybody he's careless and not to let him near their lawns.
The comment to which you're responding didn't claim the glasses enabled it more than some other device does. And these employees don't work for the companies that make those devices. You can see how your question is irrelevant whataboutism right?
I don't even get what the comment has to do with anything. Is it supposed to be some kind of zinger? It's a great idea. Make him spend all night arresting people.
So it's a message aimed at gullible children. If it were true, they wouldn't announce it. Announcing it, in the hope you'll go quietly, is admitting out loud that they would in fact prefer precisely that, and that they don't have unlimited time and energy to spend on you.
Humans aren't always rational actors. Many people are delighted by having the power to inflict fear and pain upon others. Policing jobs seem to structurally attract such people, I've seen incidents and scandals of this nature in many places.
Whether one phrases it as a lack of energy or a preference, is not the important part. The important part is, the cop (apparently along with teachers, parents etc.) is lying. It's a tactical lie. Gratuitously offered, I might add, since no one cares what his preferences or energy level are.
He would probably prefer to spend a shift sitting around drinking coffee than hauling people out of a meeting. Unless he's gung-ho or a bit of a sadist, as people elsewhere on the thread have implied. Just for giggles I'll make the "energy" argument too: How long can he maintain a vigorous struggle against a truly resistive subject, or a whole room full of them? How long can he keep up with someone who is in athletic running shape? Not "all night" surely. He will try to avoid having it come to that, by controlling the situation early, calling for backup, and/or relying on various technologies.
The article didn't "include" the zinger, the cop said it. If you think it's an inappropriate thing for a cop to say (I do) then the article is not to blame for you being angry. The cop is.
The article didn't enrage me. The video did. The actions of the local politicians and police did.
Stop acting like a jerk here. If you have something of substance to say, you can use full sentences and avoid vile slurs. We've cut you plenty of slack because you've had substantive things to say, but that can't continue if you keep this up. This is a place for people who have basic standards of decency, at the very least. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
“ After reading the article, while I sympathize with the woman who was arrested, I am not surprised at the outcome.”
Such a “nuanced” take that has been repeated ad infinitum in this thread isn’t exactly worthy of further discussion considering the shallow depth of the position.
Yeah the public loves being told by elites that we're being hysterical. Funny part is, the only upside presented, the one we're supposedly so tragically overlooking, is tax revenue.
Paying me to accept something I would otherwise reject, that doesn't benefit me and may harm me, is called a bribe, isn't it? Or a bit more charitably, getting me on your side by offering a (usually not significant) share of the profits.
reply