Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 18:03.
You want peer reviewed studies in the past 100 years have shown that smoking cigarettes is not harmful? I do not have time at the moment, but I can tell you where to find them: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
The person who can tell you how many is Dr Stan Glantz at UCSF Parnassus Street campus. I'm sure if you pinged him from a UC email address he'd be happy to answer the question, or if he does not know exactly off the top of his head, he'll have one of his post docs do the legwork lol
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 18:12.
Dr Chivers, my point in posting the above is not that you are wrongheaded, or part of an evil conspiracy, but that peer review is not incorruptible.I saw you speaking very incisively about the insufficient media coverage of this accident. Science is political too. Perhaps science is less influenced by big money,perhaps not.
I understand your point, however, although some scientists may publish through peer-review based on their own bias, it is very rare that the data they are publishing are corrupt since the process of publishing is very vigorous. I understand that no system is incorruptible, but the system of peer-review continues to be the gold standard of interpreting truth through observation. There literally is no better system I know that comes close. As scientists, we are trained to be skeptical, even of peer-reviewed articles. We often question how articles got published and sometimes we attempt to challenge results by producing data of our own. In the end, it is the accumulation of all publications within a scientific question that provides the answer. If you publish data that continues to be experimentally refuted by others, your reputation will not last. This keeps this system very tight and before publishing, we will often include internal review of data and methods before submitting to a journal.
Christopher Busby seems to have undermined his scientific legitimacy due to he association with anti-nuclear political organizations. He has come to conclusions about low-level radiation exposure before observations can clearly support his claims. Scientists do this to either be first to the market on theory or because they have political bias. Both motivations are not rooted in science. His conclusions are subjected to peer review just as anyone else, but it seems there is a dearth of real peer-reviewed publications to support his claim, either by him or anyone else. For anyone who reads his reports and informal publications, please ensure you are knowledgable of the source and the bias behind it. Bias is everywhere and scientists must fight it at all costs,...,even within your own writings.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 11:35.
dchivers, How are you any less biased than Busby except on the other side? You are pro nuke (I doubt any anti-nuke activists would be associated with Nuclear engineering) and Berkeley gets money from the DHS no? Livermore labs?
Peer reviewed" means nothing in the term of being correct.
The main goals of peer review are:
*Establish that the article is worthy of publication and consistent with the scope of the publication in question.
*Reviewers will check, to the extent they can, to see if the methodology and its presentation is logical and clear—not necessarily right, but logical and clear.
*Peer review is not in any way shape or form a proof that a study is correct, or even likely to be correct. Enormous numbers of incorrect conclusions have been published in peer-reviewed journals over time. This is demonstrably true.
*Studies are only accepted as likely correct a over time after the community has tried as hard as it can to poke holes in the findings. Future studies will try to replicate the findings, or disprove them.
I am pro-science and pro-environment. There is no questionare when I put a grant proposal that states: "Do you believe in nuclear power?"...I have NEVER had a conversation about nuclear power in any of my reviews within any agency I have done research for. If anything, I am anti-coal...which is absolutely the greatest pollution source we know. It is continuous and dangerous. Anything is cleaner than coal and we receive more carcinogenic exposure from coal-fire emissions than any other man-made source. I have references I can post later on this.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 18:31.
Just wanted to say thank you dchivers for elaborating on your personal opinions and professional work. It is very generous for you to provide this info to folks whom you have never met nor know nothing about. Please know that we here (and I venture to guess many others on this site) truly appreciate what you and BRAWM team are doing. Stay focused on the task at hand (providing the most accurate results possible)and godspeed!!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 11:21.
To true as I research to gather information I see bias on both sides it makes it tricky to find real unbiased information .one thing I can say if it wasn't for nytimes and Japanese media I would have no idea what was occurring in Japan in respect to Fukushima .as for scientist don't they all work for someone...
Yes, scientists all work for someone and if they are academics, they may receive funding from agencies or industries that may provide a source of bias. As an academic researcher, I have to maintain some level independence in my work from the funding sources. Without this independence, it undermines my credibility. If you have a proven political bias then when you publish without peer review, your articles can be undermined. Peer-review articles are supposed to reduce this bias by providing independent review of the scientific merit of the work. Even if you have bias, peer-review can reduce this bias in most scientists mind (note, I did not say reduce it to zero). Its kind of like when I see commercials late at night with the MD with the white coat selling some kind of gadget to lose weight or live longer, or whatever. Now, in my mind they have lost credibility to publish anything on those subjects because they have a legitimate monetary interest.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 15:04.
In the 1930s German scientists showed that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.[26] In 1938 a study by a Johns Hopkins University scientist suggested a strongly negative correlation between smoking and lifespan. In 1950 five studies were published in which "smoking was powerfully implicated in the causation of lung cancer".[27] These included the now classic paper "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" which appeared in the British Medical Journal. This paper reported that "heavy smokers were fifty times as likely as non-smokers to contract lung cancer".[27][28]
In 1953 scientists at the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City demonstrated that cigarette tar painted on the skin of mice caused fatal cancers.[29] This work attracted much media attention; the New York Times and Life both covered the issue. The Reader's Digest published an article entitled "Cancer by the Carton".[29]
A team of British scientists headed by Richard Doll carried out a longitudinal study of 34,439 medical specialists from 1951 to 2001, generally called the "British Doctors Study."[30] The study demonstrated that about half of the persistent cigarette smokers born in 1900–1909 were eventually killed by their habit (calculated from the logarithms of the probabilities of surviving from 35–70, 70–80, and 80–90) and about two thirds of the persistent cigarette smokers born in the 1920s would eventually be killed by their habit. After a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places was introduced in Scotland in March 2006, there was a 17 percent reduction in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome. 67% of the decrease occurred in non-smokers.[31]
The health effects of tobacco have been significant for the development of the science of epidemiology. As the mechanism of carcinogenicity is radiomimetic or radiological, the effects are stochastic. Definite statements can be made only on the relative increased or decreased probabilities of contracting a given disease; Philosophically and theoretically speaking, it is impossible to definitively prove a direct causative link between exposure to a radiomimetic poison such as tobacco smoke and the cancer that follows. Tobacco companies have capitalized on this philosophical objection and exploited the doubts of clinicians, who consider only individual cases, on the causal link in the stochastic expression of the toxicity as actual disease.[32]
There have been multiple court cases on the issue that tobacco companies have researched the health effects of tobacco, but suppressed the findings or formatted them to imply lessened or no hazard.[32]
A study published in the journal Pediatrics[33] refers to the danger posed by what the authors call "third-hand smoke" — toxic substances that remain in areas where smoking has recently occurred. The study was reviewed in an story broadcast by the Voice of America.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 15:19.
Facinating
As the mechanism of carcinogenicity is radiomimetic or radiological, the effects are stochastic. Definite statements can be made only on the relative increased or decreased probabilities of contracting a given disease;
Wasn't the BIER study based on this stochastic proccess ?
Stochastic process
In probability theory, a stochastic process, pronounced /st??kæst?k/, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system). Instead of dealing with only one possible reality of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths may be more probable and others less so.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-26 14:31.
I don't know but this article on cell phones and tumor risk is fascinating. I say who has a vested interest in cell phones and proving there safe the cell phone industry,then who has a vested interest in public safety the public.is there a publicly funded non governmental agency that represents the population ?I realize it's unrelated subject but the correlation factor is representative of current nuclear situation.there is no private corporation looking out for our health there's no money in it!
peer reviewed articles that tobacco not harmful
You want peer reviewed studies in the past 100 years have shown that smoking cigarettes is not harmful? I do not have time at the moment, but I can tell you where to find them: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
The person who can tell you how many is Dr Stan Glantz at UCSF Parnassus Street campus. I'm sure if you pinged him from a UC email address he'd be happy to answer the question, or if he does not know exactly off the top of his head, he'll have one of his post docs do the legwork lol
replying to myself here...
Dr Chivers, my point in posting the above is not that you are wrongheaded, or part of an evil conspiracy, but that peer review is not incorruptible.I saw you speaking very incisively about the insufficient media coverage of this accident. Science is political too. Perhaps science is less influenced by big money,perhaps not.
I understand your point,
I understand your point, however, although some scientists may publish through peer-review based on their own bias, it is very rare that the data they are publishing are corrupt since the process of publishing is very vigorous. I understand that no system is incorruptible, but the system of peer-review continues to be the gold standard of interpreting truth through observation. There literally is no better system I know that comes close. As scientists, we are trained to be skeptical, even of peer-reviewed articles. We often question how articles got published and sometimes we attempt to challenge results by producing data of our own. In the end, it is the accumulation of all publications within a scientific question that provides the answer. If you publish data that continues to be experimentally refuted by others, your reputation will not last. This keeps this system very tight and before publishing, we will often include internal review of data and methods before submitting to a journal.
http://www.wired.com/wiredsci
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/how-to-set-the-bullshit-filter...
http://doctorapsley.com/Radia
http://doctorapsley.com/RadiationTherapy.aspx
Read this.
Christopher Busby seems to
Christopher Busby seems to have undermined his scientific legitimacy due to he association with anti-nuclear political organizations. He has come to conclusions about low-level radiation exposure before observations can clearly support his claims. Scientists do this to either be first to the market on theory or because they have political bias. Both motivations are not rooted in science. His conclusions are subjected to peer review just as anyone else, but it seems there is a dearth of real peer-reviewed publications to support his claim, either by him or anyone else. For anyone who reads his reports and informal publications, please ensure you are knowledgable of the source and the bias behind it. Bias is everywhere and scientists must fight it at all costs,...,even within your own writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby
dchivers, How are you any
dchivers, How are you any less biased than Busby except on the other side? You are pro nuke (I doubt any anti-nuke activists would be associated with Nuclear engineering) and Berkeley gets money from the DHS no? Livermore labs?
Peer reviewed" means nothing in the term of being correct.
The main goals of peer review are:
*Establish that the article is worthy of publication and consistent with the scope of the publication in question.
*Reviewers will check, to the extent they can, to see if the methodology and its presentation is logical and clear—not necessarily right, but logical and clear.
*Peer review is not in any way shape or form a proof that a study is correct, or even likely to be correct. Enormous numbers of incorrect conclusions have been published in peer-reviewed journals over time. This is demonstrably true.
*Studies are only accepted as likely correct a over time after the community has tried as hard as it can to poke holes in the findings. Future studies will try to replicate the findings, or disprove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090503/1255574725.shtml
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-nece...
http://math.rejecta.org/
I am pro-science and
I am pro-science and pro-environment. There is no questionare when I put a grant proposal that states: "Do you believe in nuclear power?"...I have NEVER had a conversation about nuclear power in any of my reviews within any agency I have done research for. If anything, I am anti-coal...which is absolutely the greatest pollution source we know. It is continuous and dangerous. Anything is cleaner than coal and we receive more carcinogenic exposure from coal-fire emissions than any other man-made source. I have references I can post later on this.
Just wanted to say thank you
Just wanted to say thank you dchivers for elaborating on your personal opinions and professional work. It is very generous for you to provide this info to folks whom you have never met nor know nothing about. Please know that we here (and I venture to guess many others on this site) truly appreciate what you and BRAWM team are doing. Stay focused on the task at hand (providing the most accurate results possible)and godspeed!!
To true as I research to
To true as I research to gather information I see bias on both sides it makes it tricky to find real unbiased information .one thing I can say if it wasn't for nytimes and Japanese media I would have no idea what was occurring in Japan in respect to Fukushima .as for scientist don't they all work for someone...
Yes, scientists all work for
Yes, scientists all work for someone and if they are academics, they may receive funding from agencies or industries that may provide a source of bias. As an academic researcher, I have to maintain some level independence in my work from the funding sources. Without this independence, it undermines my credibility. If you have a proven political bias then when you publish without peer review, your articles can be undermined. Peer-review articles are supposed to reduce this bias by providing independent review of the scientific merit of the work. Even if you have bias, peer-review can reduce this bias in most scientists mind (note, I did not say reduce it to zero). Its kind of like when I see commercials late at night with the MD with the white coat selling some kind of gadget to lose weight or live longer, or whatever. Now, in my mind they have lost credibility to publish anything on those subjects because they have a legitimate monetary interest.
How many peer reviewed
How many peer reviewed studies in the past 100 years have shown that smoking cigarettes is good for you?
I give up, how many? Can you
I give up, how many? Can you post a reference for me?
Studies here's some that were not believed
In the 1930s German scientists showed that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.[26] In 1938 a study by a Johns Hopkins University scientist suggested a strongly negative correlation between smoking and lifespan. In 1950 five studies were published in which "smoking was powerfully implicated in the causation of lung cancer".[27] These included the now classic paper "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" which appeared in the British Medical Journal. This paper reported that "heavy smokers were fifty times as likely as non-smokers to contract lung cancer".[27][28]
In 1953 scientists at the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City demonstrated that cigarette tar painted on the skin of mice caused fatal cancers.[29] This work attracted much media attention; the New York Times and Life both covered the issue. The Reader's Digest published an article entitled "Cancer by the Carton".[29]
A team of British scientists headed by Richard Doll carried out a longitudinal study of 34,439 medical specialists from 1951 to 2001, generally called the "British Doctors Study."[30] The study demonstrated that about half of the persistent cigarette smokers born in 1900–1909 were eventually killed by their habit (calculated from the logarithms of the probabilities of surviving from 35–70, 70–80, and 80–90) and about two thirds of the persistent cigarette smokers born in the 1920s would eventually be killed by their habit. After a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places was introduced in Scotland in March 2006, there was a 17 percent reduction in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome. 67% of the decrease occurred in non-smokers.[31]
The health effects of tobacco have been significant for the development of the science of epidemiology. As the mechanism of carcinogenicity is radiomimetic or radiological, the effects are stochastic. Definite statements can be made only on the relative increased or decreased probabilities of contracting a given disease; Philosophically and theoretically speaking, it is impossible to definitively prove a direct causative link between exposure to a radiomimetic poison such as tobacco smoke and the cancer that follows. Tobacco companies have capitalized on this philosophical objection and exploited the doubts of clinicians, who consider only individual cases, on the causal link in the stochastic expression of the toxicity as actual disease.[32]
There have been multiple court cases on the issue that tobacco companies have researched the health effects of tobacco, but suppressed the findings or formatted them to imply lessened or no hazard.[32]
A study published in the journal Pediatrics[33] refers to the danger posed by what the authors call "third-hand smoke" — toxic substances that remain in areas where smoking has recently occurred. The study was reviewed in an story broadcast by the Voice of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco
I don't understand: I asked
I don't understand: I asked for references to the contrary? Can you find a peer-reviewed paper that concludes that cigarette smoking is good for you?
What do you mean: "Studies here's some that were not believed"...who did not believe them? It seems the scientists believed them...
Facinating As the mechanism
Facinating
As the mechanism of carcinogenicity is radiomimetic or radiological, the effects are stochastic. Definite statements can be made only on the relative increased or decreased probabilities of contracting a given disease;
Wasn't the BIER study based on this stochastic proccess ?
Stochastic process
In probability theory, a stochastic process, pronounced /st??kæst?k/, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system). Instead of dealing with only one possible reality of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths may be more probable and others less so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
I am not that poster but if
I am not that poster but if u read this u will see his point.this paper goes into the history of studies that cancer was caused by smoking...
http://www.smokescreens.org/preface.htm
Cigaretts
I don't know but this article on cell phones and tumor risk is fascinating. I say who has a vested interest in cell phones and proving there safe the cell phone industry,then who has a vested interest in public safety the public.is there a publicly funded non governmental agency that represents the population ?I realize it's unrelated subject but the correlation factor is representative of current nuclear situation.there is no private corporation looking out for our health there's no money in it!
Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/...
Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'