Mobiles May 18, 2006
Posted by moonwatcher in General.3 comments
Ever since the introduction mobile phones, there has been a chorus of criticism regarding the health implications of using these devices. Now I’m not referring to the physical effects induced by low self esteem due to not owning the latest, most fashionable, ‘you beaut’, take anywhere and do everything phones on the market today that have become an indispensable tool and fashion accessory. Check out Sanaa’s entry as she covers the social implications of mobile phones really well. No, what I’m referring to is cancer. Every now and then, something happens to put the argument back on the agenda again that mobile phones cause cancers or other life threatening ailments. And what put this back onto the agenda? The high incidence of staff illness (brain tumours) at the Bourke St, RMIT building. But are mobile phones and associated magnetic fields the cause?
It would be nice to give a cut and dried yes/no answer here, but frankly there is not enough research to make an accurate determination. Take a look at the conclusions given to research and experiments on the Bandolier website. Although their results are quite calming in the sense that we can freely continue using these devices without series health side effects, the dates from which these conclusions are based are a little alarming. Isn’t there anyone with more up to date research? Have a look at Cancer Research UK. According to Cancer Research UK, there is no connection between mobile phone use and brain tumours (or other cancers), but, it does state there needs to be more research. Tamar Nordenberg’s article also corroborates the Bandolier and Cancer Research UK findings. The good news after reading these articles is there is no direct link between usage and cancer; the better news is the writers of these articles advise more research so that a more definitive conclusion can be reached. So what’s the bad news? The cancer-health website provides a very stark and sobering flip side to the argument. It rejects that there is no link and provides a compelling argument as to why.
So who is right? If I knew that I wouldn’t be writing this blog entry. Read the linked articles for yourself and hunt around for more information if you don’t think they cover the argument well enough.
Conspiracies, Hoaxes and Fakes May 2, 2006
Posted by moonwatcher in General.11 comments
There was once a time when conspiracy theorists, hoaxers and fakers were considered fringe groups of society who engaged in activities and studies that were questionable, fanciful or just plain incorrect. Occasionally, one would get a film or documentary made that might get an airing on TV in a timeslot befitting its content, or appear on a chat or variety show as an ‘expert’ informing us of the deceptions and lies being perpetuated right infront of us (including by them perhaps!) by people, agencies or societies unknown. And then the technology changed. Mass communication and data transfers via computers connected to the internet came along allowing anyone, anywhere access to uncensored information. Who needs traditional media when the possibilities of new media are so tantalizing. So now we have a plethora of conspirators etc publishing unsubstantiated information via the internet on a variety of topics including extra terrestrials, masons, religious orders, government agencies, September eleven and my personal favourite, the Apollo moon landings.
Has man walked on the moon? What a stupid question, and yet there are millions of people who believe we haven’t. Are these people gullible, ignorant and stupid? Probably, but take a look at how this ‘evidence’ is presented by such people or organizations as Dave Cosnette and the American Patriot Friends Network websites. Did you have a look? Don’t read on until you do! It is rather compelling the arguments and evidence presented, and I literally mean the way it’s presented. Lots of photos, movies to click on, charts, graphs, illustrations; anything to disguise the fact that there aren’t any facts. And everything is written as a question, where are the answers? Maybe they are here. Have a look at Robert A. Braeunig’s website. Notice something different? It’s all facts, paragraph after paragraph of facts, no pictures or illustrations, just the facts. And it debunks the debunkers. Compelling? Yes. Sexy? No. Faking intelligence by disguising ignorance is not new, it’s just a lot easier to do now with the visual technology at our disposal. Have you ever seen someone give a PowerPoint or Keynote presentation?
Having a voice on the internet, sure, why not, there is a right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But what if what you are writing is complete nonsense? And what’s more, what if it has been discredited and shown to be rubbish? Should it be removed from the internet? If so, by whom? I guess any good conspirator would say there is a conspiracy of silence, or a conspiratorial vendetta or something like that to stop them, so it’s probably better to just let them keep publishing, if for no other reason it gives them something to do and it gives the rest of us a good laugh. Speaking of which, take a look at Seymour Sense’s website. And to finish off, click here to see the footage of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel. Don’t know who they are, click here for the fox news report.
