Pipe and tobacco
- Thread starter Tallswife
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
At one time, you were killed for being a denier. Thankfully, those days are over.
Denying scientific facts just makes one look silly and may result in self-inflicted death from misinformation...
Denying scientific facts just makes one look silly and may result in self-inflicted death from misinformation...
Science beggs many questions. You had best tow the line or you don't get grants.
Anthropology, take care with your studies or you can be called a racist, or sexist,and loose your job. Work for the EPA, don't ask if those big bird killing windmills are really a good thing or not. Just asking can get you fired. Psychology, best not ask any question about mental health and alternative sexuality.
When the argument ask uncomfortable questions, just label the questioner a flat earthier and that ends the conversation.
Science takes us a lot of places we never could go before, however science is not a cold rational place where only the facts matter. Science is run by boys snd girls in lab coats who are on competition with other boys and girls. Compitition for dollars, for publications, and jobs. You best agree with the orthodoxy or loose all you invested.
When Coop told researchers what findings he wanted any reasonable person could expect A) you found what you were told to, or B) you lost funding. While the findings can be valid the studies are at least tainted.
Anthropology, take care with your studies or you can be called a racist, or sexist,and loose your job. Work for the EPA, don't ask if those big bird killing windmills are really a good thing or not. Just asking can get you fired. Psychology, best not ask any question about mental health and alternative sexuality.
When the argument ask uncomfortable questions, just label the questioner a flat earthier and that ends the conversation.
Science takes us a lot of places we never could go before, however science is not a cold rational place where only the facts matter. Science is run by boys snd girls in lab coats who are on competition with other boys and girls. Compitition for dollars, for publications, and jobs. You best agree with the orthodoxy or loose all you invested.
When Coop told researchers what findings he wanted any reasonable person could expect A) you found what you were told to, or B) you lost funding. While the findings can be valid the studies are at least tainted.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
:shake:
Here is an example of what I mean Black Hand. About one third of the population will get high blood pressure. Smokers have an avarage of lower blood pressure, but suffer from higher incedent of hypertensive related disorders. How come?
Smoking a death stick spikes the b/p for about twenty min after a smoke (we don't see that in pipe smokers). This spike does the damage that long term high blood pressure does.
So smoking is the same as having high b/p even though avarage numbers are lower. Does that make sense to you, it does to me.
However. If they were not smokers we should still see an incedent of 1/3 with high b/p and hypertensive related disorders. Maybe a little higher as people who smoke, even if they quit may not be health seekers. They may be sloppy with meds and diet anyway .
Now that person presents with a b/p related issue. What caused it? Why his smoking of corse. Well that's what the science reports will say. In fact only incedents above 1/3 would be smoking related. 1/3 would be normal findings. That's not how it will be reported. If that person dies it will be another smoking related death.
That's propaganda not science.
Smoking a death stick spikes the b/p for about twenty min after a smoke (we don't see that in pipe smokers). This spike does the damage that long term high blood pressure does.
So smoking is the same as having high b/p even though avarage numbers are lower. Does that make sense to you, it does to me.
However. If they were not smokers we should still see an incedent of 1/3 with high b/p and hypertensive related disorders. Maybe a little higher as people who smoke, even if they quit may not be health seekers. They may be sloppy with meds and diet anyway .
Now that person presents with a b/p related issue. What caused it? Why his smoking of corse. Well that's what the science reports will say. In fact only incedents above 1/3 would be smoking related. 1/3 would be normal findings. That's not how it will be reported. If that person dies it will be another smoking related death.
That's propaganda not science.
I agree with Tenngun. People believe what they're told. Objectivity is impossible. See the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When a man takes the time to form his own opinion based on something other than what the liberal schools, and the tv tell him, he's branded a denier.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
And when one willfully chooses to ignore decades of well-supported scientific data....?
I'll pick science over fantasy any day. Deny away - it doesn't change anything.
What exactly does Heisenberg's principle have to do with cigarette smoking? Isn't this principle taught at one of those liberal-thinking schools by one of those liberal-thinking academics?
I'll pick science over fantasy any day. Deny away - it doesn't change anything.
What exactly does Heisenberg's principle have to do with cigarette smoking? Isn't this principle taught at one of those liberal-thinking schools by one of those liberal-thinking academics?
I was kidding about the snuff btw..., :haha: You add more cancers with snuff than with smoking.
Well yes that's true in probably 90% of the cases, but if you EVER hear somebody utter the phrase "The consensus is..." when speaking about science..., it is not science but conjecture at that point.
Alas, there is a problem and science is harmed, when folks take the science, and ignorantly or intentionally, skew what the science actually found. :shake: While the scientists finish a first hypothesis and experimentation, they of course come up with additional questions that need to be investigated and answered, and while doing that... some layman runs off half cocked spouting "findings" that weren't found.
Examples,
Remember how nitrates and nitrites in preserved meat will cause cancer??? Well those meat preservatives when mixed with digestive chemicals in a laboratory setting do form carcinogens. No question. So the word spread and folks started reducing or eliminating their use at any level in many food applications. Among the follow-up questions was "Does this happen in an actual human stomach?" A study was done in Switzerland, very recently, and they didn't find those carcinogenic compounds forming in the stomach. :shocked2: They did find that residual nitrites in the stomach reduced the threat of food poisoning, and that food poisoning had increased sharply among school children from the reduction of the preservatives. Of course, this opens a door to a lot more questions that need answering by a lot more research.
Next come the agenda people. We have a local case, where a local range used for turkey shoots was closed because the shot flew over a small creek, and impacted the bank on the opposite shore, on the property. A local fellow had an independent testing company come in and test the water for lead, down stream from the range. Lead was found, ergo the range must be closed as it's contaminating the water.
Now, folks missed the fact the guy paying for the testing was connected with a company that was going to build houses nearby, and he didn't like the noise from the once a month turkey shoot. Folks missed the fact that the company was actually hired to test the water below the range, but not to determine the source for the lead contamination. The science was good..., the application of the science was bad, and any good scientist would have done more testing to determine the actual lead source....and to eliminate any possible tampering by the developer to achieve his goal. It may be from the range, but none of the proper science actually proved that.
More lead. There are no examples of California Condor deaths due to ingestion of lead bullet fragments nor lead shot. There is evidence that lead is getting into the birds and is damaging their reproductive abilities, and added to that, the birds are endangered. So came the ban on lead projectiles in California. Maybe it will help, maybe not..., nobody actually knows, yet. In this case it was probably a good idea, but this reaction is overused (imho) in other cases..., such as the previous example.
Then you get the occasional erroneous conclusion by the scientists themselves. Archaeologists found a Native skull at the site of a battle where the Natives were up against Conquistadors with steel and firearms. That skull has a nice, neat, round hole in it. Under electron microscopic examination, that hole is rimmed with iron. Ergo, the archaeologists declared they had found the earliest known evidence of a bullet wound in North America. The iron musket ball struck the Native in the head they declared.
Except the Conquistadors did not use iron to make musket balls...nobody did. They used lead and then when those musket balls ran out, they used river stones. The more likely explanation is that the round, spiked, butt end of a halberd (which the Conquistadors did carry) was used to pop a hole in the skull of the unfortunate and prostrate Native to ensure he was dead, during the aftermath of the battle.
Unfortunately my friend, we live in a world where folks paint with a broad brush huge groups that fall under certain headings. One cop murders a person, ergo all cop shootings are murders. The occasional scientist makes a bad conclusion, OR some layman skews good science into a falsehood, and all folks see is "the science was wrong". It wasn't, just what was reported was wrong, BUT folks then think it can all be questioned.
This is a bit off the idea that tobacco isn't bad for you..., it is in any form.
LD
Well yes that's true in probably 90% of the cases, but if you EVER hear somebody utter the phrase "The consensus is..." when speaking about science..., it is not science but conjecture at that point.
Alas, there is a problem and science is harmed, when folks take the science, and ignorantly or intentionally, skew what the science actually found. :shake: While the scientists finish a first hypothesis and experimentation, they of course come up with additional questions that need to be investigated and answered, and while doing that... some layman runs off half cocked spouting "findings" that weren't found.
Examples,
Remember how nitrates and nitrites in preserved meat will cause cancer??? Well those meat preservatives when mixed with digestive chemicals in a laboratory setting do form carcinogens. No question. So the word spread and folks started reducing or eliminating their use at any level in many food applications. Among the follow-up questions was "Does this happen in an actual human stomach?" A study was done in Switzerland, very recently, and they didn't find those carcinogenic compounds forming in the stomach. :shocked2: They did find that residual nitrites in the stomach reduced the threat of food poisoning, and that food poisoning had increased sharply among school children from the reduction of the preservatives. Of course, this opens a door to a lot more questions that need answering by a lot more research.
Next come the agenda people. We have a local case, where a local range used for turkey shoots was closed because the shot flew over a small creek, and impacted the bank on the opposite shore, on the property. A local fellow had an independent testing company come in and test the water for lead, down stream from the range. Lead was found, ergo the range must be closed as it's contaminating the water.
Now, folks missed the fact the guy paying for the testing was connected with a company that was going to build houses nearby, and he didn't like the noise from the once a month turkey shoot. Folks missed the fact that the company was actually hired to test the water below the range, but not to determine the source for the lead contamination. The science was good..., the application of the science was bad, and any good scientist would have done more testing to determine the actual lead source....and to eliminate any possible tampering by the developer to achieve his goal. It may be from the range, but none of the proper science actually proved that.
More lead. There are no examples of California Condor deaths due to ingestion of lead bullet fragments nor lead shot. There is evidence that lead is getting into the birds and is damaging their reproductive abilities, and added to that, the birds are endangered. So came the ban on lead projectiles in California. Maybe it will help, maybe not..., nobody actually knows, yet. In this case it was probably a good idea, but this reaction is overused (imho) in other cases..., such as the previous example.
Then you get the occasional erroneous conclusion by the scientists themselves. Archaeologists found a Native skull at the site of a battle where the Natives were up against Conquistadors with steel and firearms. That skull has a nice, neat, round hole in it. Under electron microscopic examination, that hole is rimmed with iron. Ergo, the archaeologists declared they had found the earliest known evidence of a bullet wound in North America. The iron musket ball struck the Native in the head they declared.
Except the Conquistadors did not use iron to make musket balls...nobody did. They used lead and then when those musket balls ran out, they used river stones. The more likely explanation is that the round, spiked, butt end of a halberd (which the Conquistadors did carry) was used to pop a hole in the skull of the unfortunate and prostrate Native to ensure he was dead, during the aftermath of the battle.
Unfortunately my friend, we live in a world where folks paint with a broad brush huge groups that fall under certain headings. One cop murders a person, ergo all cop shootings are murders. The occasional scientist makes a bad conclusion, OR some layman skews good science into a falsehood, and all folks see is "the science was wrong". It wasn't, just what was reported was wrong, BUT folks then think it can all be questioned.
This is a bit off the idea that tobacco isn't bad for you..., it is in any form.
LD
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
Science is self-correcting and far more dependable than the general public comprehends. It is scientific ignorance that is the problem - people who are willing to accept the words of whatever crack-pot with a loud voice that hasn't any data to back up their conjecture. The problem isn't the science, it is the politicians who have the agenda. We see this every day.
I'll still take science over fantasy any day...
I'll still take science over fantasy any day...
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
Suffice it to say "There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em if you are so inclined. That's your choice but, don't blow smoke up my butt by telling me that tobacco is not harmful. Denying that it is harmful does not change the death rate by one iota.
That wasn't aimed at you, Blackhand, it was aimed at those who continue to deny that tobacco is harmful.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em if you are so inclined. That's your choice but, don't blow smoke up my butt by telling me that tobacco is not harmful. Denying that it is harmful does not change the death rate by one iota.
That wasn't aimed at you, Blackhand, it was aimed at those who continue to deny that tobacco is harmful.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
Understood.
Willful ignorance is a terrible thing...
Willful ignorance is a terrible thing...
What is it that is not harmful? Looking back on thi I don't see where any one said tobacco was good for you. However neither is achohol.
I know I called them death sticks my self on this thread. We have found that light pipe smokers tend to have a three year longer life expectancy. I didn't say that, some 'wing nut' on the internet didn't say that, the Surgen General of the United States said that. To have a lifespan the same length as a non smoker a pipe smoker must smoke three to five bowls a day , to shorten his life he must smoke over seven. Again that's not me or some wing nut that's the British national institute of health and the Swedish national institute of health.
To say all tobacco use is bad, is the same as all alcohol is bad. Used in small amounts no study any where has found a link to an increased death rate. Yet were told by 'Scientist' that there is.
I'm not a science denier. To tell me science is self correcting is to at least exagerate the facts a bit. Yeah we found out piltdown was a fraud, but it took fifty years. In fact Clarence Darrow tried to use it as evidence in the Monkey Triels.
Eggs were the great bug a boo starting in the sixties. The science corrected fourty years later
How many peole change their life and missed out on the health benefits of eggs?
I am not a denier, I don't think I live in a fantasy. But I do think for my self. Science isn't going to be my new religion. Or maybe I will be a heritic. I will think for my self, read the research and come to my own thoughts on the matter. I don't think the great thinker of the past like Newton or Darwin or Jefferson would have wanted a world were we blindly follow the latest 'scientific findings' like so many lemmings, like so many 'faithful'. You don't become a denier because you read Phillip graham or Scott wolter or even Eric Von danikin. You become a lemming if you believe them with out thinking. However no more of a lemming if you just swallow the laters scientific findings of the week.
If you think science isn't used for political and social engineering and try to force behavior with 'the best science says' then I have a bridge for you...cash only please.
I know I called them death sticks my self on this thread. We have found that light pipe smokers tend to have a three year longer life expectancy. I didn't say that, some 'wing nut' on the internet didn't say that, the Surgen General of the United States said that. To have a lifespan the same length as a non smoker a pipe smoker must smoke three to five bowls a day , to shorten his life he must smoke over seven. Again that's not me or some wing nut that's the British national institute of health and the Swedish national institute of health.
To say all tobacco use is bad, is the same as all alcohol is bad. Used in small amounts no study any where has found a link to an increased death rate. Yet were told by 'Scientist' that there is.
I'm not a science denier. To tell me science is self correcting is to at least exagerate the facts a bit. Yeah we found out piltdown was a fraud, but it took fifty years. In fact Clarence Darrow tried to use it as evidence in the Monkey Triels.
Eggs were the great bug a boo starting in the sixties. The science corrected fourty years later
How many peole change their life and missed out on the health benefits of eggs?
I am not a denier, I don't think I live in a fantasy. But I do think for my self. Science isn't going to be my new religion. Or maybe I will be a heritic. I will think for my self, read the research and come to my own thoughts on the matter. I don't think the great thinker of the past like Newton or Darwin or Jefferson would have wanted a world were we blindly follow the latest 'scientific findings' like so many lemmings, like so many 'faithful'. You don't become a denier because you read Phillip graham or Scott wolter or even Eric Von danikin. You become a lemming if you believe them with out thinking. However no more of a lemming if you just swallow the laters scientific findings of the week.
If you think science isn't used for political and social engineering and try to force behavior with 'the best science says' then I have a bridge for you...cash only please.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
:shake:
For someone claiming not to be a science-denier, you've managed to hit the major science-denier talking points pretty well...
Do you think evolution is a fraud too?
For someone claiming not to be a science-denier, you've managed to hit the major science-denier talking points pretty well...
Do you think evolution is a fraud too?
No, I don't think evolution a fraud. Nor do I think geology is a fraud, I don't think there is an ark on Ararat or little green men built Stonehenge. I can't get a lot of faith in the Knights Templar hiding the holy grail in America or the USA is a conspericy of the Mason's.
I believe a lot of myth. I think Arthur, Agamemnon Beowulf David, The exadus were based on real people and real events. However I recall the Population bomb, the Comming Dark Age, the testimony before congress of all the dire events that would happen if we didn't adopt the Kyoto treaty in just ten years, that was eight years ago and we didn't adopt it those things didn't happen.
I also recall Raymond Dart who left us a blood and gore history of humanity, and Richard leaky who took a hippy dippy everyone lived in peace and harmony world in pre history, dart lived through the horror of the first war, leaky influenced by Mead and the Beatles
Scientist are just humans who can't escape their own preconceived notions. Hitler and Wilson both read the best science of politics and anthropology to come to their ideas of genocide as a positive thing for humanity. Hitler in the gas chambers Wilson in the abortion clinics.
It would be nice if science was lofty and above politics and just looked for truth, however science depends on funding. It's no longer the gentleman with his home made telescope and magnifiying glass making science, it's big business. If one wants funding one better look where the guys with the money tell them. You had better publish the results that make the funders happy.
When ever your told that if you can't understand it you just have to have faith that the guys who did the study are smart and have studied it and believe them, you can bet it's bad science. And if your placing bets, you can bet the 'science 'will change as soon as the wind blows in a different direction.
I believe a lot of myth. I think Arthur, Agamemnon Beowulf David, The exadus were based on real people and real events. However I recall the Population bomb, the Comming Dark Age, the testimony before congress of all the dire events that would happen if we didn't adopt the Kyoto treaty in just ten years, that was eight years ago and we didn't adopt it those things didn't happen.
I also recall Raymond Dart who left us a blood and gore history of humanity, and Richard leaky who took a hippy dippy everyone lived in peace and harmony world in pre history, dart lived through the horror of the first war, leaky influenced by Mead and the Beatles
Scientist are just humans who can't escape their own preconceived notions. Hitler and Wilson both read the best science of politics and anthropology to come to their ideas of genocide as a positive thing for humanity. Hitler in the gas chambers Wilson in the abortion clinics.
It would be nice if science was lofty and above politics and just looked for truth, however science depends on funding. It's no longer the gentleman with his home made telescope and magnifiying glass making science, it's big business. If one wants funding one better look where the guys with the money tell them. You had better publish the results that make the funders happy.
When ever your told that if you can't understand it you just have to have faith that the guys who did the study are smart and have studied it and believe them, you can bet it's bad science. And if your placing bets, you can bet the 'science 'will change as soon as the wind blows in a different direction.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
Part of the issue is that people who took a little science in secondary school and read a few books feel they are qualified to critique science. These people also think they know more about science than scientists and are entitled to the same credibility as those who have dedicated their entire lives to scientific endeavors.
If I want a medical opinion, I go to a doctor. If I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. If I want a good bunch of broccoli, I ask a grocer. If I want scientific information, I don't ask the average person on the street, I go to the people who did the work...
If I want a medical opinion, I go to a doctor. If I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. If I want a good bunch of broccoli, I ask a grocer. If I want scientific information, I don't ask the average person on the street, I go to the people who did the work...
That's a good idea, but you should never surrender your own mind. I have been apart of three clinical trials and saw findings manipulated. In one a double blind study it didn't take any leanghth of time to see who was getting what drug was going to what person. Surprise, the healthiest people got the new drug and the sickest getting the old drug. Guess who had the best outcomes. ( by .03%) but you won't find the old drug around these days. A second study I was envolved in any one with half a brain should have known wouldn't work...it didn't. In the meantime we had to deal with injured people we made worse, wow who would of dreamed. In the last study I was in, again bad idea from the start, resulted in so many deaths it was stopped early. it effected some of my faith in 'scientific testing'
I've read that there are a lot of questions about the effect of smoking. At one time smoking a pipe or cigars didn't count as smoking with my insurance company. Anyway, I'm 84 years old and something is going to kill me pretty quick, so it might as well be something I enjoy, like Macanudos, Jameson's and Guiness. graybeard.
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
True, very true! My doctor told me that I need to watch what I eat and loose some weight so I can live longer. My thought is do I want to starve and die a skinny man or just do what I'm doing and die with something good on my breath. I'm going with the idea of dying with something good on my breath. :haha:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 505
ff Y'all are going to give yourselves a stroke!!
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
If we keep beating this dead horse :dead: you are right. I think it is time to put this subject to bed. Nobody is changing anybody else's mind. Those who want to smoke appear to be determined to continue doing so and those of us who know it to be bad for our health will not smoke. And thus will it go.
Similar threads
