This is a great debunking from theblogprof
Saturday, October 16, 2010
This has made the rounds in news circles for a couple of days now. The claim that is not only dubious, but is flat out non-scientific. Here are some snippets from the article that first appeared in the UK Mail Online:
Cancer is a man-made disease fuelled by the excesses of modern life, a study of ancient remains has found.
Tumours were rare until recent times when pollution and poor diet became issues, the review of mummies, fossils and classical literature found.
...'The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialisation.'
...Despite slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies being rehydrated and placed under the microscope, only one case of cancer has been confirmed.
...Professor David, who presented the findings to Professor Mike Richards, the UK's cancer tsar and other oncologists at a conference earlier this year, said: 'In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare.
...'There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.
Nothing in the above article is scientific in the least, and here's why: 1) The sampling size is far small and the life expectancy back in those days was too short for major cancers to appear in the general population. That is true even to this day. The majority of cancer occurring in society does not occur to children, teenagers and young adults but rather t mostly to people at an advanced age.
2) The sun can and does cause cancer. So do other forms of radiation. Radioactive material in the soil was more present thousands of years ago than it was today. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are the result of incomplete combustion were around thousands of years ago just as they are today. VOCs, like many other compounds found in nature, are carcinogenic. The claim that all cancer is due to the industrial revolution has no basis in fact.
3) These 'scientists' are neglecting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or are rather ignorant of it. In essence, it demands that complex systems, ones with a great deal of information, decay into a less ordered form. I have blogged about that law many times (this is just one example but you can also hit the '2nd law' tag for others). But here's it's implication - as time goes on we will see a higher and higher incidence of cancer in society. This is the 2nd law acting on our genes. As DNA copies itself over and over and over again, and imperfect genes are handed down from one generation to the next, the statistical probability of something going wrong will necessarily increase. If you go backwards in time, there were fewer copy imperfections going all the way back to Adam and Eve when there were no imperfections. Imperfection began when the 2nd law was imposed on us at the fall of man:
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life. -Genesis 3 (NIV)
19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.- Romans 8 (NIV)
UPDATE: Speaking of cancer, there was this over at Instapundit:
PHYSICS SAYS cellphones can’t cause cancer. “Cell phones cannot cause cancer, because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. Some forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are energetic enough to break the bonds in key molecules such as DNA and thereby generate mutations that lead to cancer. Electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light, microwaves, television and radio signals, and AC power is too weak to break those bonds, so we don’t worry about radios, televisions, microwave ovens and power outlets causing cancer.”
Actually, it's not just type of radiation but rather the dose that is important. The effect is cumulative, and dose has to do with both the type of radiation and the amount of time exposed to it: The Fermi Chronicles - Part 4: Radiation Types and Radiation "Dose"
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Bill O'Reilly and "The View"
So, by now we've all seen this blow up between Bill O'Reilly and Whoopi and Joy on "The View". It all began with a conversation about why Obama's poll numbers are falling. O'Reilly, as he has said on his show cited the example of supporting the Mosque near Ground Zero. He made the point to demonstrate that Obama has made decisions that are contrary to public will.
O'Reilly further cited polling that 70% of Americans oppose its construction as a matter of sensitivity. Joy Behar did not believe his citation. The fact that she is unaware of clear opposition to the mosque's construction suggest that she must be living in a cocoon. We can only hope, however foolishly that a butterfly emerges.
Whoopi blew her top at O'Reilly on the Mosque citation and pressed him further at which point he said it was insensitive because Muslims killed us on 9/11. Whoopi and Joy, clearly exasperated said it was fanatics, not Muslims. Long story short, Whoopi and Joy walked off the set. Whoopi walked out after pointing out that Timothy McVeigh of Oklahoma City was a Christian.
Ok, now. Let me address this simply. Whether O'Reilly should have attached "fanatics" as a prefix to "Muslims" is immaterial. The very notion that the lack of such a prefix is an indictment of all Muslims is frankly, demagogic. The significance of 9/11 is that for the first time in American history we were attacked by people who did so as an article of faith. Their faith was Islam. They willfully conducted an act of mass murder based on a radical interpretation of "jihad", a critical tenet of Islam. No rational person concludes that nineteen radical Muslims are indicative of all Muslims.The failure to include "radical" or "fanatical" to the comment is unnecessary.
Then there's the invoking of Timothy McVeigh as a Christian. I am unaware of Mr. McVeigh's faith. There is a reason for that. Mr. McVeigh's murderous action in Oklahoma City was driven by an irrational hatred of authority, represented by the Federal Government. He did not conduct himself with an eye towards paradise as an expression of faith. The nineteen hijackers on 9/11 did conduct themselves on faith, however barbaric their interpretation. The comparison to McVeigh is specious. However, it should be noted that in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombings that conservative talk show hosts were accused of inspiring the act with anti government rhetoric. The failure to distinguish between anti government and limited government was overlooked as a pretext to shift blame. In fact, recently, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center on Chris Matthews' show suggested that the origins of the Oklahoma City tragedy could be traced back to Ronald Reagan in the 1980's. You must love the double standard.
The broader point is that no rational person holds all Muslims accountable for 9/11 anymore than they would hold public figures responsible for a lone bomber in Oklahoma City. The act in Oklahoma City was secular in nature, whereas 9/11 had clear religious overtones.
Joy Behar, on her show tonight called O'Reilly's musings "hate speech". First of all, in a republic such as ours there is only one kind of speech and it is free. "Hate speech" is code for "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". Ironically, she was making this allegation while Jesse Ventura, who has accused George Bush of orchestrating 9/11 was on the set. I guess "hate speech" is relative. Behar is wrong in any case. We all must recognize why and who we are at war with. Like it or not, a radical fringe of Islam is killing in the name of Islam. It is by no means indicative of all Muslims by pointing it out. O'Reilly is right. Whoopi and Joy are in denial.
O'Reilly further cited polling that 70% of Americans oppose its construction as a matter of sensitivity. Joy Behar did not believe his citation. The fact that she is unaware of clear opposition to the mosque's construction suggest that she must be living in a cocoon. We can only hope, however foolishly that a butterfly emerges.
Whoopi blew her top at O'Reilly on the Mosque citation and pressed him further at which point he said it was insensitive because Muslims killed us on 9/11. Whoopi and Joy, clearly exasperated said it was fanatics, not Muslims. Long story short, Whoopi and Joy walked off the set. Whoopi walked out after pointing out that Timothy McVeigh of Oklahoma City was a Christian.
Ok, now. Let me address this simply. Whether O'Reilly should have attached "fanatics" as a prefix to "Muslims" is immaterial. The very notion that the lack of such a prefix is an indictment of all Muslims is frankly, demagogic. The significance of 9/11 is that for the first time in American history we were attacked by people who did so as an article of faith. Their faith was Islam. They willfully conducted an act of mass murder based on a radical interpretation of "jihad", a critical tenet of Islam. No rational person concludes that nineteen radical Muslims are indicative of all Muslims.The failure to include "radical" or "fanatical" to the comment is unnecessary.
Then there's the invoking of Timothy McVeigh as a Christian. I am unaware of Mr. McVeigh's faith. There is a reason for that. Mr. McVeigh's murderous action in Oklahoma City was driven by an irrational hatred of authority, represented by the Federal Government. He did not conduct himself with an eye towards paradise as an expression of faith. The nineteen hijackers on 9/11 did conduct themselves on faith, however barbaric their interpretation. The comparison to McVeigh is specious. However, it should be noted that in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombings that conservative talk show hosts were accused of inspiring the act with anti government rhetoric. The failure to distinguish between anti government and limited government was overlooked as a pretext to shift blame. In fact, recently, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center on Chris Matthews' show suggested that the origins of the Oklahoma City tragedy could be traced back to Ronald Reagan in the 1980's. You must love the double standard.
The broader point is that no rational person holds all Muslims accountable for 9/11 anymore than they would hold public figures responsible for a lone bomber in Oklahoma City. The act in Oklahoma City was secular in nature, whereas 9/11 had clear religious overtones.
Joy Behar, on her show tonight called O'Reilly's musings "hate speech". First of all, in a republic such as ours there is only one kind of speech and it is free. "Hate speech" is code for "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". Ironically, she was making this allegation while Jesse Ventura, who has accused George Bush of orchestrating 9/11 was on the set. I guess "hate speech" is relative. Behar is wrong in any case. We all must recognize why and who we are at war with. Like it or not, a radical fringe of Islam is killing in the name of Islam. It is by no means indicative of all Muslims by pointing it out. O'Reilly is right. Whoopi and Joy are in denial.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
