All they need to do is setup some banner ads on their site, and submit some press releases to Slashdot. They might make enough money to buy a few copies of Unreal Tournament, which they could play while locking themselves in their offices when the landlords come to evict them.
Re:Provide Links to good articles please
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
"Re-read the post dude. Its is essentially a plea for better information instead of heresay evidence. I have noting against the intent of the author who wrote the piece its just that its so badly written and contains no useful data" "A statistical argument would sway my thoughts(and the EPA's) much more."
I've read it quite well thank you, and I've read many similiar articles. The whole crux of them all simply came down to: "There is not enough evidence, more studies need to be done, but the industry is blocking such moves"
There simply isn't any conclusive data, and peoples lives are at stake. It may not have enough 'data' to your liking, but last time I checked, not too many newspapers publish definitive scientific results of studies, but rather summaries of findings and some statistic like '1 out of 100 bleh people who blah get blah blah and blah'. Unfortunately there are not many findings available because the industry is trying it's best to make sure none are ever reached. More articles like these are needed to increase public awareness of potential risks so that pressure can be applied to make the semiconductor industry cooperate.
But I guess people pushing for it hate money, want to put people out of jobs, and are communists. Did you hear that all those scientists from the 1950's who claimed radiation was harmful were on the KGB payroll?
Re:Provide Links to good articles please
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
"With a post that started "heh heh"??? Do you think I _might_ have been???
systematic employee abuse, I'll remember not to start it with a laugh, ok?
(wondering if anybody is doing research into the irony deficit of some slashdot readers:-)
Umm... maybe you should include yourself in that list. My reply was to a comment one branch above you. Got it mr genius?
Re:But apparently, working at IBM prevents cancer
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
That's a nice abstract. Guess what. I've read the full article already. Here you go: http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/chips.htm
I'm sure when you read it, you will be sure to pick of plenty of information to further solidify your beliefs on the subject, while overlooking the plain fact that the industry simply will not support further studies because they know they would be caught and it would cost them millions.
Re:Provide Links to good articles please
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
Are you kidding me? Jeez. This is supposed to insightful because this guy tosses some basic knowledge that you'd pickup in a couple college chemistry courses? These really big words are obviously just a ploy to blind people to his true intent. Some other ill informed person commented that this story was 'FUD'. Well, I think your post is complete FUD. The whole point of this article is to push for studies they could help track causes of cancer with abnormally high number of cases of brain cancer. Do you feel that there is any real harm in doing so, other than slightly increasing the manufacturing costs of semiconductor companies and making your pc cost a whole couple bucks more? A pure oxygen container used on the Apollo 1 exploded and killed 3 astronauts(gus grissom etc...) We breathe oxygen. This DOES NOT ditract from the fact that oxygen can be dangerous, and so can nitric acid. Oh wait, ammonium nitrate is the main ingredient for 'fertilizer bombs'. 'wwwooooooooo nasty!!'
Re:After Skimming the Article...
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
"did YOU look anything up, or just take verbatem what the artical said?"
Yes. I won't go any further than that as it wouldn't make a difference to you. You've already made up your mind on the subject and would rather rely on your own ill informed opinion.
"Most likely the "San Fransicso Bay Chronical Editors Association for Selling More Papers". As if that wasn't obvious enough..."
Yeah that's a good one. So what's the problem with funding the research to make sure? Because the industry knows they would be caught. Your kind of thinking is the same type exhibited by far right wing nationalists in the 50's who claimed radiation was safe.
Hey that's great. I'm all for space exploration. Whether by Nasa, a foreign space agency(s), or private enterprise. At the same time, I don't like the idea of doing it at the expense of laying waste to the earth and giving cancer to half of it's inhabitants. NASA is actually pretty good in regards to pollution prevention. Sure they got ragged on for using radioactive substances once in a while, but in nearly all cases, the element used was in a state where it would have no disastrious effect on the environment. They also chose to use Xenon gas in the Ion Propulsion unit used in Cassini which while more expensive, won't be a factor with environmental damage unlike other gases. Oh yeah, as for people going into space... well.. people like you probably wouldn't pass the psychological examination required for astronauts. So feel free to let just shrug yoour shoulders and let industrial pollution spread. When you're 50 and have a golf ball growing on the inside of your head, I'm sure you'll have the same opinion on the matter. People like you give the space industry a bad name.
Re:But apparently, working at IBM prevents cancer
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
Zoyd said "The average rate of cancer in males is 44.66% (I'm assuming that, at least historically, a significant majority of the workers were male)."
Ha. If you had ever worked in a manufacturing plant you'd know that the majority of the workers are in fact women. Of course, this isn't as important as... the fact that this was a study that spanned 20 years of actual cases, while the 44.66% you refer to is 'probability' of the entire populatin of the US. Gimme a break man. This comparison is a lame example of 'how to lie with statistics'. You can't just take two ever so slightly similiar figures and compare them. You must have two similiar groups(for example, comparing with another industry), with similiar numbers of subjects.
Slashdot Mirror
All they need to do is setup some banner ads on their site, and submit some press releases to Slashdot. They might make enough money to buy a few copies of Unreal Tournament, which they could play while locking themselves in their offices when the landlords come to evict them.
"Re-read the post dude. Its is essentially a plea for better information instead of heresay evidence. I have noting against the intent of the author who wrote the piece its just that its so badly written and contains no useful data" "A statistical argument would sway my thoughts(and the EPA's) much more."
I've read it quite well thank you, and I've read many similiar articles. The whole crux of them all simply came down to: "There is not enough evidence, more studies need to be done, but the industry is blocking such moves"
There simply isn't any conclusive data, and peoples lives are at stake. It may not have enough 'data' to your liking, but last time I checked, not too many newspapers publish definitive scientific results of studies, but rather summaries of findings and some statistic like '1 out of 100 bleh people who blah get blah blah and blah'. Unfortunately there are not many findings available because the industry is trying it's best to make sure none are ever reached. More articles like these are needed to increase public awareness of potential risks so that pressure can be applied to make the semiconductor industry cooperate.
But I guess people pushing for it hate money, want to put people out of jobs, and are communists. Did you hear that all those scientists from the 1950's who claimed radiation was harmful were on the KGB payroll?
"With a post that started "heh heh"??? Do you think I _might_ have been???
:-)
systematic employee abuse, I'll remember not to start it with a laugh, ok?
(wondering if anybody is doing research into the irony deficit of some slashdot readers
Umm... maybe you should include yourself in that list. My reply was to a comment one branch above you. Got it mr genius?
That's a nice abstract. Guess what. I've read the full article already. Here you go:
http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/chips.htm
I'm sure when you read it, you will be sure to pick of plenty of information to further solidify your beliefs on the subject, while overlooking the plain fact that the industry simply will not support further studies because they know they would be caught and it would cost them millions.
Are you kidding me? Jeez. This is supposed to insightful because this guy tosses some basic knowledge that you'd pickup in a couple college chemistry courses? These really big words are obviously just a ploy to blind people to his true intent.
Some other ill informed person commented that this story was 'FUD'. Well, I think your post is complete FUD. The whole point of this article is to push for studies they could help track causes of cancer with abnormally high number of cases of brain cancer. Do you feel that there is any real harm in doing so, other than slightly increasing the manufacturing costs of semiconductor companies and making your pc cost a whole couple bucks more?
A pure oxygen container used on the Apollo 1 exploded and killed 3 astronauts(gus grissom etc...) We breathe oxygen. This DOES NOT ditract from the fact that oxygen can be dangerous, and so can nitric acid. Oh wait, ammonium nitrate is the main ingredient for 'fertilizer bombs'. 'wwwooooooooo nasty!!'
"did YOU look anything up, or just take verbatem what the artical said?"
Yes. I won't go any further than that as it wouldn't make a difference to you. You've already made up your mind on the subject and would rather rely on your own ill informed opinion.
"Most likely the "San Fransicso Bay Chronical Editors Association for Selling More Papers". As if that wasn't obvious enough..."
Yeah that's a good one. So what's the problem with funding the research to make sure? Because the industry knows they would be caught. Your kind of thinking is the same type exhibited by far right wing nationalists in the 50's who claimed radiation was safe.
Hey that's great. I'm all for space exploration. Whether by Nasa, a foreign space agency(s), or private enterprise. At the same time, I don't like the idea of doing it at the expense of laying waste to the earth and giving cancer to half of it's inhabitants. NASA is actually pretty good in regards to pollution prevention. Sure they got ragged on for using radioactive substances once in a while, but in nearly all cases, the element used was in a state where it would have no disastrious effect on the environment. They also chose to use Xenon gas in the Ion Propulsion unit used in Cassini which while more expensive, won't be a factor with environmental damage unlike other gases.
Oh yeah, as for people going into space... well.. people like you probably wouldn't pass the psychological examination required for astronauts. So feel free to let just shrug yoour shoulders and let industrial pollution spread. When you're 50 and have a golf ball growing on the inside of your head, I'm sure you'll have the same opinion on the matter. People like you give the space industry a bad name.
Zoyd said "The average rate of cancer in males is 44.66% (I'm assuming that, at least historically, a significant majority of the workers were male)."
Ha. If you had ever worked in a manufacturing plant you'd know that the majority of the workers are in fact women. Of course, this isn't as important as... the fact that this was a study that spanned 20 years of actual cases, while the 44.66% you refer to is 'probability' of the entire populatin of the US. Gimme a break man. This comparison is a lame example of 'how to lie with statistics'. You can't just take two ever so slightly similiar figures and compare them. You must have two similiar groups(for example, comparing with another industry), with similiar numbers of subjects.