-
"scientist"...what a mis-used and abused title! That term, 'scientist', should stand for an educated person that approaches a problem with an open mind...one who carefully and methodically examines the evidence...formulates hypotheses and carries out experiments to either prove or dis-prove the hypothesis...and lets the results determine the validity or non validity of the stated problem...and then will stand behind those results.
Too many mainstream 'scientists' are working for large institutions and corporations that pay their salaries and, as a result, have compromised their 'scientific' integrity in order to keep their cushy job. As has already been stated, these 'scientists', with their lofty title of 'Scientist' are just paid mouth pieces for their bosses.
There are, however, many 'scientists' that have been, for many years, working at exposing the hypocrisy and the corruption within the "scientific community".
For generations now, the title 'scientist' has stood for a highly educated person, a person of great ethical and even moral character...a person with an open and inquisitive mind...one who will not be swayed by emotion or hysteria...one who will methodically examine the evidence and let the results speak for itself. ( I know...I stated this already at the beginning...but it bares repeating)
We've come a long way from that definition.
-
Good....a new angle.....;)
Just as an aside here...or to perhaps move on to another issue since we won't (any of us) be changing our minds anytime soon..... :D
Science has made so many strides in just the past couple hundred years.....we have so much technological advancement....that we forget it is prone to error just as any other field of endeavor. Fortunately, science is self-correcting if left alone and given time.
There's a story I like to use as an analogy in cases like this where there is a scientific split. Several decades ago, the entire medical community was absolutely convinced that stress and stomach acid was the source of stomach ulcers. The prescribed treatment....lighten up and eat bland foods, and take antacids. This treatment was standard for just about any doctor. This was a closed case as far as researchers were concerned. That is...except for two pioneer doctors named Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren. They had a completely different take on peptic ulcers. They looked at the very same evidence and saw something strange. Not just stomach acid....but a bacteria (later called Helicobacter pylori). They hit the research labs for years and built a case for this bacteria as the cause of ulcers...not stress. Their colleagues laughed at them. Afterall....all the other doctors had pegged stress-induced stomach acid...period...end of story. They persisted, however.
To make a long story short....these two doctors were eventually awarded a Nobel Prize for physiology when their findings were confirmed. Those findings were that roughly 90% of ulcers are caused by this bacteria (not stress) and is treated with an antibiotic.
The point is this....
You can have an entire scientific community in absolute total agreement....and they can still be wrong. What would have happened if these two doctors had stopped researching when told they were way off the scope? Like I said....science is self-correcting....but leave it alone. You should never tell a scientist that the problem is already solved...don't bother looking there.
-
And in that same vein of self-correcting science.....
Have you guys heard the recent reports about CPR? Turns out we have been doing it wrong for the past 40 years or so....:eek:
Recent research shows that instead of giving breaths (to a heart attack victim) between compressions....you are now supposed to skip the breaths and just do the compressions. Turns out that a victim given both breaths and compressions is twice as likely to die than one just given chest compressions.
-
Where did you get this info. from on CPR? I've always heard that assisting a person's breathing is very important as well as chest compressions.
-
The primary source is The Lancet....but here is a summary.....
http://www.rxpgnews.com/cardiology/C...le_18961.shtml
Essentially....the time you take to give breaths takes away from the time you spend on compressions which are more important.
-
BTW....as I understand it....this is only in reference to cardiac victims. Drownings, smoke inhalation, etc. might still get breaths I believe. Don't quote me, though....;)
-
-
Thanks for the links. I didn't want you to think I was doubting you, it just seems like you always here one thing (from the media), then all of a sudden it's been contradicted!
Just for the heck of it, I'll ask my friend's hub - he's an ER Nurse - just to see what his take on it is.
-
What's really amazing is how much the procedure has been simplified in general....
I have been certified (and re-certified) many times over the years....but I recall my first one back in high school health class. Getting certified was a class requirement and they were very precise. Cascade beathing (4 breaths)at the right pressure. No more than two compressions outside the proper depth (over or under) range....it was tough to pass the course. The "Annie" dolls we used had a paper recording tape that ran during the test which measured everything you did....
That was then....
The last time I got recertified about 5 years ago...all we did was sit in a room and watch the instructor. Then he passed out the cert cards.....and we all had coffee and donuts. :rolleyes:
-
I am glad they've simplified CPR though. 30:2 is a lot easier to remember.
Donuts...won't that almost guarantee someone will be doing CPR on you one day? ;) :D
-
Well...all my certs come through my union now....and all they are really concerned with is being able to tell employers "All our members are certified". Saving a life is second to keeping everyone employed and the union dues flowing. :D
Sure hope my union bosses aren't around here. I could end up at the bottom of the river with cement overshoes.... :eek:
Then when the police start looking for me....they will tell them, "Yeah....he's outta town today, got a problem wit dat?"
:D
-
Having now watched the first 22 minutes of the video, the most interesting idea to me so far is the idea of a rise in temperature as a cause of the CO2 increase, instead of the other way around, with an 800 year lag between temp increase and CO2 increase. I had never considered the possibility of that relationship and don't recall ever hearing it mentioned by the "drive by media". It makes sense though when thought through. Warmer temperatures means more organic decay, which in turn means more generation of CO2, methane, water vapor and other greenhouse gases. It seems to me that increased CO2 should eventually level off as O2 levels begin to increase, then level off due to more plant growth, at which point an equilibrium of sorts will be achieved. The one thing that will remain pretty much constant regardless of any other outcomes is the level of nitrogen in the atmosphere, which for the record is about 75% of the atmosphere. The only nitrogen that is useful to life is nitrogen suspended in the soil, which is a fertilizer, and is deadly to plants when there is too much of it. Otherwise, nitrogen is mostly just an inert waste product to both plant and animal. Has anyone considered that NOx, oxides of nitrogen, which is supposedly a pollutant, could actually be natures way of putting excess oxygen out of commission so that the atmosphere does not get dangerously saturated with O2? Why would that be a problem you say? Well, three things are needed to start a fire--fuel, O2, and heat. But to propose ideas such as these requires real ideas, thought, science, and honest analysis which the global warming politicos/hypocrites such as Al Gore are not interested in.
-
Here is an interesting visual that helps to put things in perspective.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Solar_System_Relative_Size.htm
