The next big thing on the horizon poised to change the world. Graphene

[dogman6126]

Ok, sure graphene will be dangerous if released into lakes. IF that is not to say it will (even though it likely will because nothing is perfect) but likely only in very small occasions.
http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/coal-ash-fact-sheet
Example, coal ash was shown to be bad.

I said that I was young. Then I said I was naïve with respect to political concepts (lawmaking and the like). I also said that I do have relevant knowledge in this topic.

It is a negative view. When I said negative, that was not to address its authenticity, merely to described the *not sure what word is most applicable here, maybe pessimistic* view of the world.

The way you say big money skews science implied to me that you think big money skews all science (meaning what you would call relevant science). When in truth most of our science is not by big business. Pharmaceuticals, I don't know about, but I do know that is one branch of science. One arguably small branch. If I misinterpreted your word choice, I do apologize. And please don't try to turn this around to make me sound biased. I admit that I am biased in some things (no one is perfect) however in this respect, I have been very careful not to be biased. To misinterpret your word choice is not bias, that's a basic mistake. I do NOT want to get into an argument of semantics here with you. Lets stay on topic.

And you missed the point of when I said its psychology. I wasn't talking about the politics, I was talking about your apparent motivations and reasons for your world perspective. That is what I meant. Make sure you actually consider what the intent is or else we will get no where. Don't just use my words on their face for the sake of argument or we will get no where.

 

[dogman6126]

First, please stop posting so many articles, just post the links. I will read through the links because it makes it hard to post when you put the article in the forum like that.

And you will easily find cases of skewed science, but it is wrong for you to make a generalized statement like you did when you were talking about how money talks.

 

[dogman6126]

No that's a hypothetical

he said he wants to see this product up and running and i was saying woah, there needs to be further testing because if it is poisonous and it is rushed out there it will poison people and he won't get to see a graphenated world if he has been poisoned by it

Go back and read what was actually said not what you want to have been said

It may have been hypothetical, but your word choice has the effect like I described. It is not right to follow that kind of logic.

 

[muir]

Ok, sure graphene will be dangerous if released into lakes. IF that is not to say it will (even though it likely will because nothing is perfect) but likely only in very small occasions.
http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/coal-ash-fact-sheet
Example, coal ash was shown to be bad.

I said that I was young. Then I said I was naïve with respect to political concepts (lawmaking and the like). I also said that I do have relevant knowledge in this topic.

It is a negative view. When I said negative, that was not to address its authenticity, merely to described the *not sure what word is most applicable here, maybe pessimistic* view of the world.

The way you say big money skews science implied to me that you think big money skews all science (meaning what you would call relevant science). When in truth most of our science is not by big business. Pharmaceuticals, I don't know about, but I do know that is one branch of science. One arguably small branch. If I misinterpreted your word choice, I do apologize. And please don't try to turn this around to make me sound biased. I admit that I am biased in some things (no one is perfect) however in this respect, I have been very careful not to be biased. To misinterpret your word choice is not bias, that's a basic mistake. I do NOT want to get into an argument of semantics here with you. Lets stay on topic.

And you missed the point of when I said its psychology. I wasn't talking about the politics, I was talking about your apparent motivations and reasons for your world perspective. That is what I meant. Make sure you actually consider what the intent is or else we will get no where. Don't just use my words on their face for the sake of argument or we will get no where.

I'm totally willing to take this back onto neutral ground but if you want to keep it there then you shouldn't make accusations about people and dismiss what they are saying without first looking into it

I have simply stated in this thread that we don't yet know ebough about this new tech to be rolling it out willy-nilly and that there is always a danger that tech can be rolled out willy-nilly because of the profit orientated nature of the system we are currently living in

This is not 'confirmation bias' or any of the other nonsesne you accused me of...it is in fact extremely sensible

 

[dogman6126]

And to be more specific because I suspect you will try to tear at my statement, Use that kind of logic is to imply it is wrong for you to word your statements in that way and then go back and say you didn't mean them like that. Well that is exactly what that statement implies.

 

[muir]

First, please stop posting so many articles, just post the links. I will read through the links because it makes it hard to post when you put the article in the forum like that.

And you will easily find cases of skewed science, but it is wrong for you to make a generalized statement like you did when you were talking about how money talks.

It doens't make it hard for you to post, it makes no difference to your posts at all

I am providing real world examples to prove what i'm saying...the question is whether or not you can handle that reality

 

[muir]

And to be more specific because I suspect you will try to tear at my statement, Use that kind of logic is to imply it is wrong for you to word your statements in that way and then go back and say you didn't mean them like that. Well that is exactly what that statement implies.

Go back and read my posts. I warn that the tech shouldn't be rolled out until more testing is done

I made the point to EH that if it was rolled out and posionous then he wouldn't get to enjoy it because he would be poisoned...what's so hard to grasp here?

 

[dogman6126]

I'm totally willing to take this back onto neutral ground but if you want to keep it there then you shouldn't make accusations about people and dismiss what they are saying without first looking into it

I have simply stated in this thread that we don't yet know ebough about this new tech to be rolling it out willy-nilly and that there is always a danger that tech can be rolled out willy-nilly because of the profit orientated nature of the system we are currently living in

Ok I fully agree with your statement here. Its just your way of saying it comes across as very "conspiracy theorist" *not sure what else to call it*. People take it in the wrong way when you word things the way you have been. You are correct at your base I think, its just the way you argue for it is questionable.

 

[dogman6126]

Go back and read my posts. I warn that the tech shouldn't be rolled out until more testing is done

I made the point to EH that if it was rolled out and posionous then he wouldn't get to enjoy it because he would be poisoned...what's so hard to grasp here?

OK I agree with this as well. But you said it in a different way before. The way you said it here is different by word choice. Its not that your wrong, its that you just come across like you conclude that it will happen, not that it could happen. To say it could happen is much more reasonable than that it will happen. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

 

[muir]

Ok, sure graphene will be dangerous if released into lakes. IF that is not to say it will (even though it likely will because nothing is perfect) but likely only in very small occasions.
http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/coal-ash-fact-sheet
Example, coal ash was shown to be bad.

I said that I was young. Then I said I was naïve with respect to political concepts (lawmaking and the like). I also said that I do have relevant knowledge in this topic.

It is a negative view. When I said negative, that was not to address its authenticity, merely to described the *not sure what word is most applicable here, maybe pessimistic* view of the world.

The way you say big money skews science implied to me that you think big money skews all science (meaning what you would call relevant science). When in truth most of our science is not by big business. Pharmaceuticals, I don't know about, but I do know that is one branch of science. One arguably small branch. If I misinterpreted your word choice, I do apologize. And please don't try to turn this around to make me sound biased. I admit that I am biased in some things (no one is perfect) however in this respect, I have been very careful not to be biased. To misinterpret your word choice is not bias, that's a basic mistake. I do NOT want to get into an argument of semantics here with you. Lets stay on topic.

And you missed the point of when I said its psychology. I wasn't talking about the politics, I was talking about your apparent motivations and reasons for your world perspective. That is what I meant. Make sure you actually consider what the intent is or else we will get no where. Don't just use my words on their face for the sake of argument or we will get no where.

What about the very recent leak in fukishima where the water was pumped to the wrong room, or the recent oil spill in LA or the chemicals leaked into the Elk river recently? Please see the current story in the UK of the ministry of defence trying to block investigations into various radioactive spills and dumps on 15 different sites around britain

Not everything is an accident you know. Sometimes it is cheaper for corporations to dump stuff than to dispose of it legally. Sure they are fined but often the fine is less then the legitimate course of action would have taken

Graphene is not just dangerous if it is released into water (which can happen with these corporations) it is also dangerous if inhaled

My point being that you cannot trust the corporations and the regulators to behave responsibly because often they do not

We should not rush through new tech because we want a lighter mobile phone until we can be sure that the often reckless corporations and the corrupt regulators won't abuse the laws set up to protect us to turn a profit

 

[dogman6126]

It doens't make it hard for you to post, it makes no difference to your posts at all

I am providing real world examples to prove what i'm saying...the question is whether or not you can handle that reality

Ok, no. It makes it hard to scroll up to get relevant information because of all the text that I have to scroll threw.

 

[muir]

OK I agree with this as well. But you said it in a different way before. The way you said it here is different by word choice. Its not that your wrong, its that you just come across like you conclude that it will happen, not that it could happen. To say it could happen is much more reasonable than that it will happen. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I don't usually touch on peoples age but in this case this is where age can make a difference because i have seen over a decade more corruption stories than you

When i look at the totality of the situation i see a system that does not protect the public

This is not just a science issue this is also happening in economics. The regulators there enabled the financial crisis of 2008 to occur

The regulators across the board are not protecting people because they have been corrupted in a system which is money based

Politics itself has been bought by money. The big scandal breaking now in the UK is the influence of lobby groups in politics

So what i'm saying to you is try not to look at things so literally as things are not in neat little boxes...they are blurred

I'll give you an example. The US has recently funded covertly the coup in Kiev and the son of vice president Biden has been given a top position in Ukraines main gas company. This is a clear case of a conflict of interests at work.

There are many shady dealings going on behind the scenes all the time. The history books don't tell you these things they focus on dates and places and key figures but the real action is going on behind closed doors where secret deals are done. These are not conspiracy theories they are conspiracy fact....that is the way the world works at the moment under the current profit focussed system

That's reality (for now) and i'm afraid that is the world we graduate into

 

[dogman6126]

What about the very recent leak in fukishima where the water was pumped to the wrong room, or the recent oil spill in LA or the chemicals leaked into the Elk river recently? Please see the current story in the UK of the ministry of defence trying to block investigations into various radioactive spills and dumps on 15 different sites around britain

Not everything is an accident you know. Sometimes it is cheaper for corporations to dump stuff than to dispose of it legally. Sure they are fined but often the fine is less then the legitimate course of action would have taken

Graphene is not just dangerous if it is released into water (which can happen with these corporations) it is also dangerous if inhaled

My point being that you cannot trust the corporations and the regulators to behave responsibly because often they do not

We should not ruch through new tech because we want a lighter mobile phone until we can be sure that the often reckless corporations and the corrupt regulators won't abuse the laws set up to protect us to turn a profit

And I will agree with this. Although the first paragraph is a list of actual accidents. (not sure about the elk river one though). They wouldn't intentionally spill oil (loss of money) or allow a nuclear power plant to meltdown (bigger loss of money) among many other reasons. I don't know at all about this elk river thing though. I would agree that businesses need to be more responsible. And many of them are more responsible, its just many are also not. A good example of a responsible business is John Deere.

 

[dogman6126]

I don't usually touch on peoples age but in this case this is where age can make a difference because i have seen over a decade more corruption stories than you

When i look at the totality of the situation i see a system that does not protect the public

This is not just a science issue this is also happening in economics. The regulators there enabled the financial crisis of 2008 to occur

The regulators across the board are not protecting people because they have been corrupted in a system which is money based

Politics itself has been bought by money. The big scandal breaking now in the UK is the influence of lobby groups in politics

So what i'm saying to you is try not to look at things so literally as things are not in neat little boxes...they are blurred

I'll give you an example. The US has recently funded covertly the coup in Kiev and the son of vice president Biden has been given a top position in Ukraines main gas company. This is a clear case of a conflict of interests at work.

There are many shady dealings going on behind the scenes all the time. The history books don't tell you these things they focus on dates and places and key figures but the real action is going on behind closed doors where secret deals are done. These are not conspiracy theories they are conspiracy fact....that is the way the world works at the moment under the current profit focussed system

That's reality (for now) and i'm afraid that is the world we graduate into

However this is not the case all the time. In fact, considering just the amount of science done, that science which is skewed as compared to the total amount of science done is much less. So the statement "science today is bought out by big business" is inaccurate. Saying "some science today (like the pharmaceuticals) are often bought out by big business" is far more accurate and agreeable.
I come from a rural area. People aren't obsessed about profits. We help out our neighbors. That is the world I live in, so I can tell you stuff like this is not hopeless. It is not uniform everywhere. And I would argue that some day this big business thing could change. As to how or when, I have no idea. That part is a belief.

 

[muir]

And I will agree with this. Although the first paragraph is a list of actual accidents. (not sure about the elk river one though). They wouldn't intentionally spill oil (loss of money) or allow a nuclear power plant to meltdown (bigger loss of money) among many other reasons. I don't know at all about this elk river thing though. I would agree that businesses need to be more responsible. And many of them are more responsible, its just many are also not. A good example of a responsible business is John Deere.

Well some people would disagree with you over whether or not those incidents were deliberate but lets not go that far down the rabbit hole....

....lets stay in a more easily verifiable perception range.....lets go with the negligence perception....

Let's say that TEPCO wanted to save money so instead of hiring proper workers with proper gear they use the Yakuza to hire homeless and poor people with no training and give them minimal kit to go and do the clean up job. let's say that because there is so much pressure on workers who are understaffed, underpaid and under protected that an accident occurs due to a lapse in concentration, tiredness, deviation from protocol (cutting corners) or whatever leading to the toxic water being pumped into the wrong room

Let's go with the oil spills for example the gulf oil spill. There was a scandal after that relating to how corners were cut leading to the accident and that deep water drilling will bring greater risks than before

You are the guy at the control consol, you've just had a meeting in your bosses office. he has just stood and shouted in your face like a hairdryer saying that production is behind, that profits are down, that it's all your fault, that if you don't speed up the process you'll be stripped of your job, entitlements and even pension; you have a family to support and mortgage payments to make. So you start cutting corners and losing sleep over the stress. before you know it you're standing at the control console and your eyelids are closing every 2 seconds, you struggle to stay awake despite all the coffees you've drunk. The console begins to become a blur of flashing lights, the phone goes, it's your boss telling you that if there are no instant results this week will be your last with the company

You throw out the rule book and you start freestyling it until oops....mistake

 

[muir]

However this is not the case all the time. In fact, considering just the amount of science done, that science which is skewed as compared to the total amount of science done is much less. So the statement "science today is bought out by big business" is inaccurate. Saying "some science today (like the pharmaceuticals) are often bought out by big business" is far more accurate and agreeable.

Where did i say science today is bought out by big business?

I come from a rural area. People aren't obsessed about profits. We help out our neighbors. That is the world I live in, so I can tell you stuff like this is not hopeless. It is not uniform everywhere. And I would argue that some day this big business thing could change. As to how or when, I have no idea. That part is a belief.

hey i'm all for change too, but its going to need for people to see whats going on so that they can make a choice to stop it

 

[dogman6126]

Well some people would disagree with you over whether or not those incidents were deliberate but lets not go that far down the rabbit hole....

....lets stay in a more easily verifiable perception range.....lets go with the negligence perception....

Let's say that TEPCO wanted to save money so instead of hiring proper workers with proper gear they use the Yakuza to hire homeless and poor people with no training and give them minimal kit to go and do the clean up job. let's say that because there is so much pressure on workers who are understaffed, underpaid and under protected that an accident occurs due to a lapse in concentration, tiredness, deviation from protocol (cutting corners) or whatever leading to the toxic water being pumped into the wrong room

Let's go with the oil spills for example the gulf oil spill. There was a scandal after that relating to how corners were cut leading to the accident and that deep water drilling will bring greater risks than before

You are the guy at the control consol, you've just had a meeting in your bosses office. he has just stood and shouted in your face like a hairdryer saying that production is behind, that profits are down, that it's all your fault, that if you don't speed up the process you'll be stripped of your job, entitlements and even pension; you have a family to support and mortgage payments to make. So you start cutting corners and losing sleep over the stress. before you know it you're standing at the control console and your eyelids are closing every 2 seconds, you struggle to stay awake despite all the coffees you've drunk. The console begins to become a blur of flashing lights, the phone goes, it's your boss telling you that if there are no instant results this week will be your last with the company

You throw out the rule book and you start freestyling it until oops....mistake

Well then cases like this are negligence. However it cannot be said that all cases are like this. Negligence is different than intentionally trying to ruin the environment. The intent is that businesses are trying to save money and then make a mistake, and in some cases those mistakes could have been easily prevented. I will agree with this assessment. However I do feel the need to point out again this is only some of the case, not all. As for an argument of which is more common, I don't think we can find an answer reliably so we will just say some percentage cut these corners and some percentage do not. And of course we must accept the case of different types of cutting corners (some are more severe, some are not) and every combination in between). We must also accept the case of honest accidents because nothing is perfect. Some mistakes could have been an honest mistake. Now it is true that they should not cut corners (whenever big business do cut corners). However remember that not all do. So it seems the solution is tighter regulations. Perhaps a record of how often a business cuts corners and increase the punishment if they cut corners more than ones. As for how that can come about, that is politics, and like I said I don't like politics.

 

[dogman6126]

hey i'm all for change too, but its going to need for people to see whats going on so that they can make a choice to stop it

But be careful of the way you get people to see it. And in the way you say its going on. There is a difference between saying, that x y and z has happened because of business q, now events a b and c are going to happen. These absolutes are inaccurate.

 

[muir]

Well then cases like this are negligence. However it cannot be said that all cases are like this. Negligence is different than intentionally trying to ruin the environment.

If you go with the negligence argument then you implicate the system by saying that a profit orientated system leads to negligence

The intent is that businesses are trying to save money and then make a mistake, and in some cases those mistakes could have been easily prevented. I will agree with this assessment. However I do feel the need to point out again this is only some of the case, not all.

yeah some of the time it is downright deliberate

Have a look at this story about how Bayer knew that its product was infected with HIV but it sold it to the public anyway: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...fected-drug-banned-in-us-in-europe-asia.aspx#!

Now that is psychopathically criminal behaviour

As for an argument of which is more common, I don't think we can find an answer reliably so we will just say some percentage cut these corners and some percentage do not. And of course we must accept the case of different types of cutting corners (some are more severe, some are not) and every combination in between). We must also accept the case of honest accidents because nothing is perfect. Some mistakes could have been an honest mistake. Now it is true that they should not cut corners (whenever big business do cut corners). However remember that not all do. So it seems the solution is tighter regulations. Perhaps a record of how often a business cuts corners and increase the punishment if they cut corners more than ones. As for how that can come about, that is politics, and like I said I don't like politics.

So we're agreed that this graphene thing shouldn't be rushed out until more testing has been done by independent groups?

Some french scientists did experiments with GMO foods and found it gave lab rats cancerous tumours; this has lead to the french government banning GMO's; meanwhile the US government won't even make it law that food should state on its label if it is GMO, let alone ban it!

Obama has hired more GMO producing monsanto people to government postitions than any previous president

The russian government which the US corporate media love to demonise has banned GMO's to protect its citizens...but who is protecting the US citizens?

 

[muir]

But be careful of the way you get people to see it. And in the way you say its going on. There is a difference between saying, that x y and z has happened because of business q, now events a b and c are going to happen. These absolutes are inaccurate.

I think part of the problem might be that you don't realise how centrally controlled things are

Have a look at this swiss study that shows the global economy is dominated by a handful of corporations; bare in mind that corporations are just legal entities behind which are individuals and families

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/1...obal-economy-swiss-researchers_n_1028690.html

'Super-Entity' Of 147 Companies At Center Of World's Economy, Study Claims


A Swiss study appears to have uncovered what anti-capitalist activists have been claiming for years -- that the global economy is controlled by a small group of deeply interconnected entities.
But don't grab a pitchfork and head to the nearest Occupy protest just yet. Systems researchers say this isn't the result of an Illuminati-type global conspiracy, but rather a natural force to be expected.
"Such structures are common in nature," complex systems expert George Sudihara told NewScientist.
According to the study's authors -- a trio of systems researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology -- the research isn't ideologically motivated. Instead, they say, it's the first attempt at mapping the power structure of the global economy, an effort that may help to prevent future financial crises.
What they found, they say, was an economy so deeply interconnected that its structure is alarmingly susceptible to shocks.
The researchers say that while there's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with the concentration of capital in the hands of a small number of companies, when those companies become too interconnected, they can cause chain reactions that can harm the economy.
"If one [company] suffers distress," study co-author James Glattfelder said, "this propagates [itself]."

That fits with recent experience; the financial crisis of 2008 began as a problem of excessive liabilities at a handful of companies. But these companies had financial links to the rest of the industry, and their insolvency threatened to take down the entire financial system.
According to the study, which will be published shortly in the scientific journal PLoS One, there is a core group of 1,318 multinational companies that sit at the centre of global commerce. They own a majority of shares in 60 per cent of the world's large businesses and manufacturers.
Within that group, the researchers identified a "super-entity" of 147 companies that control 40 per cent of the wealth within the multinational commerce network. According to the researchers, each of the 147 companies is owned by other companies within the "super-entity," essentially creating a self-contained network of wealth.
A majority of the companies listed in the network are financial institutions, with British bank Barclays at the top of the list. Asset managers Capital Group Companies and Fidelity Investments are in second and third, while insurer AXA and State Street Corporation round off the top five.
Interestingly, the bogeyman of financial reform champions, Goldman Sachs, placed only 18th on the list.
The researchers say their work is evidence the world may need global anti-trust regulations -- rules designed to keep companies from becoming too large in their sector, or from developing de facto agreements to cooperate with competitors.
Complex systems experts note the tendency for wealth to concentrate in a small number of hands is natural.
"The Occupy Wall Street claim that one per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy," Dan Braha of the New England Complex Systems Institute told NewScientist.
Critics of the study say the researchers were measuring the wrong things, and therefore providing an incorrect image of global wealth.
As one commenter argued on the Forbes website, looking at the ownership structure of multinational corporations doesn't give you an idea of who controls the wealth, because many of the companies on the study's list are managers of wealth, not owners of it.
The list also does''t measure "pension plans, corporate [retirement] plans and individual funds [that] manage trillions in assets ultimately belonging to individuals who are predominantly not in the 'one per cent,'" the commenter wrote. "There are a number of 'custodian banks' in the list ... Again, they do not own the assets, or even really control the assets -- they merely house the assets. A better list would be the actual asset OWNERS, rather than the vendors who manage, house and clear said assets."
Here are the 5 companies at the top of the Swiss researchers' rankings.

Click on the link to see the 5 companies shortlisted