What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
51 Comments
- EatingPie, on 07/31/2008, -2/+41I don't think this article was fair in its assessment of Tierney (who I don't read, so I don't have any bias about).
Tierney says paper and plastic are about as bad. The article says don't use either. Well, yeah. But that wasn't the question, was it? It was about paper vs. plastic... Period.
Tierney reports on A/C vs windows down being about equal at high speeds. The article brings up low speeds, and the fact that you're even driving a car at all. Okay. But Tierney is right because he said "at 65 mph" period. And that's the speed you drive on the highway. The article is also right... though I think the guilt trip about driving at all is bogus.
The whole cell-phone/brain cancer thing is in dispute back and forth. Tierney actually acknowledges that, but points out (correctly) that scientists haven't found a consistent link. The article disagrees, and cites conflicting studies. So who is right? We don't know because the science is in dispute and hasn't been settled.
The plastic bottle thing, I'm actually in disagreement with Tierney. But all the article did was say "does he really think the fact that panels of experts have approved these chemicals for years means they are safe?" Well, yes. Yes, he does. And unless you can find some specific problem with said experts (that they're not experts, were paid off, used bad science, etc.) -- like you did with the *one* of Tierney's experts -- you probably should too. After all, you cited experts on the brain tumor thing... do you really expect us to believe them? Fallacies cut both ways.
Now let me help on one...
On the sharks... they ARE deadly. I surf exactly where the person was killed earlier this year. Shark attacks are uncommon, and there are various species, many of which don't kill. We should not indiscriminantly hunt sharks, nor is it even feasible to go after a specific "man eater" like the one which attacked at my surf spot. But to say Great White Sharks (et al) are NOT deadly... foolish.
-Pie - bixby1, on 07/31/2008, -2/+35So can I turn on the AC or what. it's hot. turning it on.
- mordochai, on 07/31/2008, -2/+26As someone who also blogs, I would love to have any purported news credibility in the world, but I don't know if Treehugger should be granted a major amount of credibility either. This is akin to the National Review writing a response article called "Ten Things You Didn't Know God Hates About Abortion" to an NYTimes report about a woman's right to chose.
However; Dugg for perpetuating public discourse on the subjects presented, and will continue reading both publications with a grain of salt. Deal? - inactive, on 07/31/2008, -12/+30Treehugger.com..... buried
- redslash, on 07/31/2008, -3/+16Good grief. When you're asked "which is worse" you can't say "don't do either". You answer the question.
I hate the NYT too but this is ridiculous. - hexydes, on 07/31/2008, -9/+18Oh God, not environmentalist spam. Digg me down, I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that militant environmentalists are insane.
- tech42er, on 08/01/2008, -0/+8Treehugger.com is nothing near a reputable source. It's obvious they're FAR left and they seem to advocate unscientific borderline conspiracy theories. The NYT article was a fair article that made a lot of god points. Cell phones and water bottles are not dangerous, no matter what treehugger.com thinks.
- blinkatron, on 07/31/2008, -0/+8If the e/m radiation emitted by cell phones does cause cancer... uh... then pretty much every electronic device known to man causes cancer.
- krnldmp, on 07/31/2008, -0/+8I don't have a problem with people being concerned with the most efficient way of doing things. I do have a problem with people believing that if it makes you comfortable its bad. Air conditioning technology has come a long way in just the last ten years, with completely new refrigerants and compressors. Many vehicles have their aerodynamics totally destroyed if you roll the windows all the way down and add 70-75 mph (which is common) to the equation and you're likely to be a lot better off with a little A/C.
- ayeroxor, on 07/31/2008, -0/+7One should always check facts. As for this site, treehugger.com, they suggest as do many "prove me wrong" types that cellphones are carcinogenic just because "who knows". They cite a bunch of other "who knows" people as proof that they're correct in saying "who knows." Circular logic.
Just 6 days ago, Bob Park, professor of physics and former chair of the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland (bio at http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/bob.html ) made fun of these CellPhone "truthers" and their persistence that anything they don't understand is therefore black magic. In his weekly "What's New" (permalink http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn072508.html ) he says as his #1 topic:
-- BEGIN QUOTE --
1. CANCER: WHAT EINSTEIN KNEW ABOUT CELL PHONES.
By now everyone has heard the news frenzy over Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, advising faculty and staff to limit cell phone use because there is no proof that it's not a cancer risk. Nonsense! All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker.
-- END QUOTE --
These people are the same ones that think your cellphone will ignite a gasoline pump from 6 feet away, then complain so much about the non-existent threat that the gasoline shops put stickers out just to shut them up. If they ever studied RF science 101 and found out that people emit radio waves (as does any object above zero K), they'd probably insist everybody wear full-body lead suits so we stop "cancering" one another.
Bonus links:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn062008.html Item 4
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn060608.html Item 4
Cellular Telephones and Cancer: How Should Science Respond? http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract ... - stix213, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6There have never been any studies that have conclusively shown cell phones cause brain cancer, and in fact they show the opposite. Just because a few experts have recommended, without any real evidence, to not use cell phones too much, doesn't mean they actually cause cancer. Have you seen teens these days? If cell phones caused brain cancer we should have an epidemic of teen brain cancer cases by now.
Anyone who thinks Americans in general are going to bring their own bags to the grocery store is a moron. Besides very small households, there are very few people in America who would even consider this.
And sorry, but calculating "food miles" is an exercise for the paranoid. It's a global economy now, wake up. If you want to spend all your time calculating how much carbon was released in the transport of your food to your plate, go right ahead - and buying local is a good thing that I try to do when possible. Although I think you are a fool if you think you are going to save the planet by buying your fruits closer to home
And lastly, I'm not going to "feel guilty about being in a car" and I won't feel guilty about running the AC in it either. If you are so concerned about saving every last drop of energy, what about the server farm pulling 2000 watts per rack running that requires huge AC units 24/7 to host your stupid website???!!! Hypocrites as usual - Grogtron, on 07/31/2008, -1/+7If treehugger were bringing credible information to the table I'd love to deal.
But since it's mostly hysterical ranting they're really harming thought than encouraging discourse. - tightscrummy, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6Militant? They are marching around with lead-free ammo in their guns and blowing up buildings with bombs made from bio-diesel? It's OK to think someone is kooky and disagree with them without hyperbole.
- surasshu, on 07/31/2008, -3/+7NYT not left-wing enough for treehugger.com? Shocking!
- DrVermin, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4LOL. How dare he tell people to ease up on worrying!!!!!
We need to be worrying ALL the TIME about EVERYTHING, people! - itspuddingtime, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3as if "puleeeze" is an adequate rebuttal. I want to slap this treehugger guy.
- ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -3/+6As for the AC in the car -- do what the classic cars do once you're out of freon: 2 - 55. 2 windows down @ 55 MPH will always cool you down.
- tech42er, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Took the words right out of my mouth!
- xptical, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3From a site like TreeHugger, do you expect anything less. Environmentalism is akin to religion these days.
- OnShakedown, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3take a cold shower, buddy.
no one's pointing a gun at you and "being green" - however you want to describe it - doesn't mean living in poverty.
most "green" things are really just ways to save money, it's just an added benefit that they happen to eff things up less than doing things in the non-green way.
that's why wal-mart and plenty of other huge corporations are going green. if they can save some fuel by trucking around less packaging, it'll increase their profits. it's just a bonus that less packaging is a good thing for the environment. if using skylights or LED lights saves you money, why not do it. it's just a bonus that using them is better for the planet. - SupremeThor, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3You must not live in Texas...it's 108 at the moment; not exactly cooling!
- AgmLauncher, on 07/31/2008, -2/+5FTA: "Feel guilty about being in a car..."
Maybe we should write an article about 10 ways TreeHugger distorts the point..... - OnShakedown, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4you get a hell of a lot better mileage at 55 too.
- stealthc, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I'm guessing it's more than just the e/m fields of the electronics, but the radio signal coming out of the device constanly, even when on standby.
- knowitman, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Depends on the car.
- dezholling, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2The argument is more likely concerning the specific frequencies being transmitted, but whatever...
- spider-man, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Not in Florida in the summer. Not by a longshot.
- slightlyDrunk, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Agreed. This article distorted the facts and didn't counter Tierney's points effectively. The fuel consumption diagram they show is for an SUV, not a car. The increase in fuel consumption is fairly insignificant for a car. Follow the links from the treehugger article to their previous article and then to the SAE study charts to confirm this.
- sonoran, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Seems like a lot of: "Prove the article wrong by reconstituting the question"; "Cite experts to support your point of view and then debunk expert testimony when the article does".
buried for being disingenuous... - glomza, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Wait, I don't see the "AC on, windows down" option on that graph?
- thebaron2, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Great post. I'd digg it twice if I could.
- relativeLogic, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1It is hilarious reading pseudo-scientific comments from non-scientists in the forums these days. This is especially true when it comes to the "green" topics. As far as I am concerned, unless you are trained in one of the pure sciences (physics, chemistry or biology) or pure philosophy (mathematics), your opinion is pretty much worthless. You see, it is the scientific method, in addition to axiomatic logical induction, which were adopted in order to prevent this sort of meaningless discourse. Obviously, one cannot understand either of these principles without extensive training in one of the above mentioned disciplines. In other words, most of you are completely ignorant of the scientific rigor necessary to arrive at the conclusions which you hold as absolute truths.
- kimgh, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2"Anyone who thinks Americans in general are going to bring their own bags to the grocery store is a moron. Besides very small households, there are very few people in America who would even consider this."
May be a small number, but it's not 0; I'm one American who DOES bring my own (canvas) bags to the store for my regular weekly shopping trip. I've done it for years and it's paid for itself several times over, since most stores around here give 3-5 cents discount per bag. BTW: I DON'T consider myself to be a tree-hugger.
Regarding the cell phone thing: As a physicist, I have a hard time understanding how the non-ionizing radiation of a cell phone could possibly trigger cancer. The worst that could happen is some local heating of tissue near the antenna. But the power is low compared to, say, the power of a microwave oven, so even that should not be harmful. We're all bathed every day in frequencies from DC to daylight, so it would be very difficult to specifically identify a cell phone as the culprit for a brain tumor, even if those frequencies could be PROVED to cause cancer. And we are far from having such proof. The doctor who made a pronouncement about this this week is not persuasive in my opinion. - jonnyeh, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1The phone uses very little power when on standby, that's why the battery doesn't run out in only a few hours like it would if you were having a conversation.
- stix213, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1well, they are talking about brain cancer, so I think they are ignoring standby. Not too many people hold their phone to their ear while on standby :)
Now if we want to bring up blue tooth headsets, now you have something. - afireinside13t, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Yes, but if you tackle the small problems first, the big problems become a lot easier. It's easier to become energy independent if you're using a lot less energy.
- Konrad9, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I tried 2 windows down at *75* in the 95 degree CONNECTICUT weather and I still had sweat trickling down my back.
Worst part is I only get 34mpg with the AC on.
(Yeah, that's me making fun of people who drive an SUV) - cenobyte40k, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2People need to really get their priorities straight. AC vs. No AC, or paper vs. plastic are not the questions we need to be asking ourselves. We need to be asking about energy independence (At least only North American dependence), we need to talk about bugets and Fed Debt (Around $33,000 per person (Including children) or around $9 trillion), we need to talk about sustanable farming, (Zero point recyling, where they sort it out of the trash for you). We need to talk about lowering power use and we need to talk about how to do it without dropping standard of living. I just don't get why people will talk about the little things like they are huge but are unable to talk about or deal with the huge things in any way. Lets start with all the low hanging fruit to improve the way we live while lowering our footprint both to the enviroment and the problems caused by our needs (middle east conflict, debt for our children, etc). Wake up people, forget this junk and lets deal with the big problems.
- jonnyeh, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I agree, it seemed like their only reasonable gripe was the one about whether imported fruit causes more carbon emissions than domestic fruit. But of the 10, it seemed like the least important to me.
They attack him for saying that plastic bags are better than paper, by saying that both are bad. Duh, that wasn't his point though.
Their biggest criticism? That he dares to use humour! Puhleaze. - itspuddingtime, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1but how many modern electronic devices do you press directly against your skull?
- natejw7, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Could have just watched MythBusters reruns; they covered this is season 2 I think. Anyway, in a study I just made up, I found that riding with the windows down causes people to turn up their music way to loud. Hence they go deaf.
I'd prefer to be cool and maintain my hearing. - jonnyeh, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1and more comfortable.
- DrJG, on 07/31/2008, -8/+8It is an eye-opener for those that trust NYT - when it is about your life and safety, think again and check facts. I suppose one need not single out NYT except that it did have trust of readers.
- mrmudgeon, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0This article is terrible and full of bias. The cell-phone stuff is very weak and is mostly public officials getting publicity for themselves by being "cautious". We have had cell phones in some communities for 25 years now. If there was a significant risk of brain cancer, it would be in the data. It is not.
Ditto with plastic bottles. While our "understanding" may indeed change, it will not in this case. The chemicals used have been in the food supply for decades with no ill affects observed. The science may change. The data will not.
This article may be good theatre. It is pretty useless as information. - lasterisk, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1***** you! Two Americans have died from having to bring their own bags to the store!
- lasterisk, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1he says militant because his mom forced him to eat his greens so much...
- EEdesigner, on 08/01/2008, -1/+0Don't read the Times anymore so can't comment on the author. However, seeing how Digg has become a blog of evidently not very scientific folks - I'm getting to the point where this URL is about as silly as WIRED.
I don't buy the warming hype, and I'll debate anyone who comes to the table with some MATH. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it's not fact, it's opinion. It appears that lots of so-called "climate scientists" are strong on opinion, but a bit weak on fact. We can start with the good old "hocky stick" farce. - stealthc, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2Throw all the charts at me that you can. I do *not* care. I'm going to use the AC when it's hot. I'm going to eat a Kiwi. Heck, I'll even eat one when it's out of season!
All this "carbon footprint" nonsense is such a colossal steaming pile of rancid ***** I'm really running low on patience for tolerating this crap. The entire environmentalist campaign revolves around trying to convince people that choosing to put yourself in abject poverty is somehow morally superior. And then if people don't choose to forfeit their cars, air conditioners and food, then those things should be taken from them by force. What else do you think the carbon tax is for? Feel guilty for driving a car! Feel guilty for eating fruit that didn't grow on your continent! The planet is dying and it's all your fault!
Spare me the drama. I'm not murdering the planet by driving to work.
The science and the data are one thing, but insisting that we all surrender to Al Gore's idea of a new social order at the point of a gun is another thing entirely. - nugz85, on 08/01/2008, -2/+0watch penn and teller: evironmental hysteria is *****
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is