<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_06_2238247</id>
	<title>Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265454660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/08/02/15/1724218/Cell-Phone-Use-Study-Sees-Increased-Cancer-Risk">Israel</a> and <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/06/04/02/0511256/Swedish-Study-Finds-Cell-Phone-Cancer-Risk">Sweden</a> indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/story/07/07/26/1224255/Cell-Towers-Not-Responsible-For-Illness">England</a> exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/1614221/Legislator-Wants-Cancer-Warnings-For-Cell-Phones">no link</a> to cancer. The question won't go away though. Reader Artifice\_Eternity writes <i>"I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation. However, <a href="http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?printable=true">this GQ article</a> cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals.  Why haven't they gained more attention?  Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years we 've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation : studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer , one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of " microwave radiation sensitivity , " and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer .
The question wo n't go away though .
Reader Artifice \ _Eternity writes " I 've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation .
However , this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals .
Why have n't they gained more attention ?
Quoting : 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming .
Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones .
But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies , the results changed dramatically .
Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects , compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer.
The question won't go away though.
Reader Artifice\_Eternity writes "I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation.
However, this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals.
Why haven't they gained more attention?
Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming.
Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones.
But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically.
Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048746</id>
	<title>Caveat Emptor</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1265458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what restaurant's head waiter is going to tell you the daily special is bad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what restaurant 's head waiter is going to tell you the daily special is bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what restaurant's head waiter is going to tell you the daily special is bad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052670</id>
	<title>UK study on cancer since 1900 ( iOH WOW its risin)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265561460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf</p><p>and there is one countries study.</p><p>and i love how often you can post here THIS SYSTEM SUCKS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdfand there is one countries study.and i love how often you can post here THIS SYSTEM SUCKS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdfand there is one countries study.and i love how often you can post here THIS SYSTEM SUCKS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052862</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1265564040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You need to get out of the basement and play Outside MMORPG.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And be exposed to what the scientists call "sunlight", a flux of actual ionizing radiation? I don't think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to get out of the basement and play Outside MMORPG .
And be exposed to what the scientists call " sunlight " , a flux of actual ionizing radiation ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to get out of the basement and play Outside MMORPG.
And be exposed to what the scientists call "sunlight", a flux of actual ionizing radiation?
I don't think so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31053638</id>
	<title>Re:Insulation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265570820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really, since the interest groups would just work to get 'their' people on the committee.  Microsoft did that not long ago with a standards committee, when they didn't originally support their 'standards'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , since the interest groups would just work to get 'their ' people on the committee .
Microsoft did that not long ago with a standards committee , when they did n't originally support their 'standards' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, since the interest groups would just work to get 'their' people on the committee.
Microsoft did that not long ago with a standards committee, when they didn't originally support their 'standards'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049434</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265465220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it is because there's quite a few actual scientists in the relevant fields posting on Slashdot.  Or maybe it's the fact that you expect people to make decisions solely on whom created the stufy rather than 1) evidence 2) rational explanation of the results.  CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and is the major causal agent behind the climate change we're seeing right now.  Microwaves OTOH are not capable of breaking molecular bonds found in cells.<br>
&nbsp; <br>--A biochemist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is because there 's quite a few actual scientists in the relevant fields posting on Slashdot .
Or maybe it 's the fact that you expect people to make decisions solely on whom created the stufy rather than 1 ) evidence 2 ) rational explanation of the results .
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and is the major causal agent behind the climate change we 're seeing right now .
Microwaves OTOH are not capable of breaking molecular bonds found in cells .
  --A biochemist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is because there's quite a few actual scientists in the relevant fields posting on Slashdot.
Or maybe it's the fact that you expect people to make decisions solely on whom created the stufy rather than 1) evidence 2) rational explanation of the results.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and is the major causal agent behind the climate change we're seeing right now.
Microwaves OTOH are not capable of breaking molecular bonds found in cells.
  --A biochemist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051810</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265549160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you not watched the NFL this year? There were many rule changes to prevent concussions .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you not watched the NFL this year ?
There were many rule changes to prevent concussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you not watched the NFL this year?
There were many rule changes to prevent concussions .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049398</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1265464800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(1) Based on the standard rules of statistical acceptance, a study only has to reach requires a 95\% confidence level. That means that 1 in every 20 identical studies will produce a false positive merely by chance. When you have an area of study in which thousands of studies have been done over decades you end up with hundreds of studies reporting positive results just by chance.</p><p>(2) Statistical meta analysis of studies is largely nonsense unless your talking about a field in which nearly identical studies are done over and over again. Usually, when these meta studies hit the media you find they they equally weight to every study regardless of presumed rigor of the studies. In this case, the gold standard is the Swedish study that followed tens of thousands of people over decades. How to you compare that to a study that just data mined a few hundred medical records?</p></div><p>You also need to consider publication bias.</p><p>Find a link between cancer and cell phones? That's a publication.</p><p>Didn't find anything? Not so interesting, might not bother.</p><p>Interestingly it's not impossible to <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/publication-bia.html" title="overcomingbias.com">detect a publication bias</a> [overcomingbias.com], would be interesting to try that approach on these studies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Based on the standard rules of statistical acceptance , a study only has to reach requires a 95 \ % confidence level .
That means that 1 in every 20 identical studies will produce a false positive merely by chance .
When you have an area of study in which thousands of studies have been done over decades you end up with hundreds of studies reporting positive results just by chance .
( 2 ) Statistical meta analysis of studies is largely nonsense unless your talking about a field in which nearly identical studies are done over and over again .
Usually , when these meta studies hit the media you find they they equally weight to every study regardless of presumed rigor of the studies .
In this case , the gold standard is the Swedish study that followed tens of thousands of people over decades .
How to you compare that to a study that just data mined a few hundred medical records ? You also need to consider publication bias.Find a link between cancer and cell phones ?
That 's a publication.Did n't find anything ?
Not so interesting , might not bother.Interestingly it 's not impossible to detect a publication bias [ overcomingbias.com ] , would be interesting to try that approach on these studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) Based on the standard rules of statistical acceptance, a study only has to reach requires a 95\% confidence level.
That means that 1 in every 20 identical studies will produce a false positive merely by chance.
When you have an area of study in which thousands of studies have been done over decades you end up with hundreds of studies reporting positive results just by chance.
(2) Statistical meta analysis of studies is largely nonsense unless your talking about a field in which nearly identical studies are done over and over again.
Usually, when these meta studies hit the media you find they they equally weight to every study regardless of presumed rigor of the studies.
In this case, the gold standard is the Swedish study that followed tens of thousands of people over decades.
How to you compare that to a study that just data mined a few hundred medical records?You also need to consider publication bias.Find a link between cancer and cell phones?
That's a publication.Didn't find anything?
Not so interesting, might not bother.Interestingly it's not impossible to detect a publication bias [overcomingbias.com], would be interesting to try that approach on these studies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049224</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1265463120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they do just fine.</p></div><p>People that work around x-ray machines do <i>just fine</i> too.</p><p>The problem with measuring damage caused by EM radiation is that old waterbucket scenario. The same one that applies to global warming. You can keep dumping water in until it spills over the edge. While dumping water in, you only get drops spilling over when it's approaching the brim. As soon as it passes it, you have a wet floor.</p><p>The problem is, EM radiation is everywhere. Would you give up electricity and powerlines - perhaps living in a log cabin - to get away from it? I would not. So although I acknowledge that in 50 years this'll probably bite me in the ass... oh well. I can't say I wasn't warned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they do just fine.People that work around x-ray machines do just fine too.The problem with measuring damage caused by EM radiation is that old waterbucket scenario .
The same one that applies to global warming .
You can keep dumping water in until it spills over the edge .
While dumping water in , you only get drops spilling over when it 's approaching the brim .
As soon as it passes it , you have a wet floor.The problem is , EM radiation is everywhere .
Would you give up electricity and powerlines - perhaps living in a log cabin - to get away from it ?
I would not .
So although I acknowledge that in 50 years this 'll probably bite me in the ass... oh well .
I ca n't say I was n't warned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they do just fine.People that work around x-ray machines do just fine too.The problem with measuring damage caused by EM radiation is that old waterbucket scenario.
The same one that applies to global warming.
You can keep dumping water in until it spills over the edge.
While dumping water in, you only get drops spilling over when it's approaching the brim.
As soon as it passes it, you have a wet floor.The problem is, EM radiation is everywhere.
Would you give up electricity and powerlines - perhaps living in a log cabin - to get away from it?
I would not.
So although I acknowledge that in 50 years this'll probably bite me in the ass... oh well.
I can't say I wasn't warned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049424</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1265465100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, I don't have a cellphone and use wireless Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , I do n't have a cellphone and use wireless Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, I don't have a cellphone and use wireless Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051964</id>
	<title>By Ham Radio Standards... Unsafe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265552640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saw this blogged:</p><p>"2.2212 mw/cm2, still four times over the limit considered safe"</p><p><a href="http://matts.org/cellphones\_produce\_excessive\_rf\_radiation" title="matts.org" rel="nofollow">http://matts.org/cellphones\_produce\_excessive\_rf\_radiation</a> [matts.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw this blogged : " 2.2212 mw/cm2 , still four times over the limit considered safe " http : //matts.org/cellphones \ _produce \ _excessive \ _rf \ _radiation [ matts.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw this blogged:"2.2212 mw/cm2, still four times over the limit considered safe"http://matts.org/cellphones\_produce\_excessive\_rf\_radiation [matts.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720</id>
	<title>Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.</p><p>This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.</p><p>We like our echo chambers just like everyone else.</p><p>Now cue the nerds screaming about RF radiation is harmless, and always has been, and always will be:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The / .
demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.We like our echo chambers just like everyone else.Now cue the nerds screaming about RF radiation is harmless , and always has been , and always will be :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The /.
demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.We like our echo chambers just like everyone else.Now cue the nerds screaming about RF radiation is harmless, and always has been, and always will be:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049676</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265468400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter how many peer-reviewed, controlled studies are done, or how much evidence is amassed supporting a claim, if the subject is something people are passionate about, there will always be a segment of the population (sometimes quite large and powerful) who won't believe it.</p><p>See also: Evolution, the age of the universe, anthropogenic climate change, vaccines causing autism, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter how many peer-reviewed , controlled studies are done , or how much evidence is amassed supporting a claim , if the subject is something people are passionate about , there will always be a segment of the population ( sometimes quite large and powerful ) who wo n't believe it.See also : Evolution , the age of the universe , anthropogenic climate change , vaccines causing autism , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter how many peer-reviewed, controlled studies are done, or how much evidence is amassed supporting a claim, if the subject is something people are passionate about, there will always be a segment of the population (sometimes quite large and powerful) who won't believe it.See also: Evolution, the age of the universe, anthropogenic climate change, vaccines causing autism, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050450</id>
	<title>who funds the research?</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1265479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I know I always evaluate whether research is scientifically valid based on two binary values: who funded it, and whether it was positive or negative.

<p>God forbid someone actually look at those 350 studies and see if any of them even had the beginnings of a valid scientific process?  What the sample sizes were?  How they defined biological effect or harm?

</p><p>Naaaaaaaaaaaah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I know I always evaluate whether research is scientifically valid based on two binary values : who funded it , and whether it was positive or negative .
God forbid someone actually look at those 350 studies and see if any of them even had the beginnings of a valid scientific process ?
What the sample sizes were ?
How they defined biological effect or harm ?
Naaaaaaaaaaaah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I know I always evaluate whether research is scientifically valid based on two binary values: who funded it, and whether it was positive or negative.
God forbid someone actually look at those 350 studies and see if any of them even had the beginnings of a valid scientific process?
What the sample sizes were?
How they defined biological effect or harm?
Naaaaaaaaaaaah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050850</id>
	<title>Easy answer to it all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265485740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The total sum of all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments about this article is worth more salt then the total sum of research done towards cellular radiation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The total sum of all the / .
comments about this article is worth more salt then the total sum of research done towards cellular radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The total sum of all the /.
comments about this article is worth more salt then the total sum of research done towards cellular radiation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050378</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>Gorphrim</author>
	<datestamp>1265477880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good enough for me.  You just sound so authoritative that I don't need any citations...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good enough for me .
You just sound so authoritative that I do n't need any citations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good enough for me.
You just sound so authoritative that I don't need any citations...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048696</id>
	<title>"independently funded"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or "in part funded by opponents of radiation"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or " in part funded by opponents of radiation " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or "in part funded by opponents of radiation"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049298</id>
	<title>What's "independent funding?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265463900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the studies weren't done by the cell industry, that doesn't mean they lack bias.  There is BIG MONEY in providing lawyers with ammunition for lawsuits and "inventors" with problems to solve for only $19.99 if you act now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the studies were n't done by the cell industry , that does n't mean they lack bias .
There is BIG MONEY in providing lawyers with ammunition for lawsuits and " inventors " with problems to solve for only $ 19.99 if you act now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the studies weren't done by the cell industry, that doesn't mean they lack bias.
There is BIG MONEY in providing lawyers with ammunition for lawsuits and "inventors" with problems to solve for only $19.99 if you act now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048826</id>
	<title>Re:GQ?</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265459760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I only read GQ on the web when I have my laptop on my lap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only read GQ on the web when I have my laptop on my lap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only read GQ on the web when I have my laptop on my lap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050262</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265476380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wish. Put your phone close to a CRT monitor and a analog radio receiver (powered on), and watch both go *bzzt*bzzt* from time to time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Now imagine the same going on in your pocket, close to your balls... aaah, what's the point... you don't need them anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wish .
Put your phone close to a CRT monitor and a analog radio receiver ( powered on ) , and watch both go * bzzt * bzzt * from time to time .
; ) Now imagine the same going on in your pocket , close to your balls... aaah , what 's the point... you do n't need them anyway .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wish.
Put your phone close to a CRT monitor and a analog radio receiver (powered on), and watch both go *bzzt*bzzt* from time to time.
;)Now imagine the same going on in your pocket, close to your balls... aaah, what's the point... you don't need them anyway.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049592</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>broken\_chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1265467320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RF radiation, <em>at the extremely low levels of energy that wifi and cell signals use</em>, is harmless to humans, always has been, and always will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RF radiation , at the extremely low levels of energy that wifi and cell signals use , is harmless to humans , always has been , and always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RF radiation, at the extremely low levels of energy that wifi and cell signals use, is harmless to humans, always has been, and always will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052692</id>
	<title>Consider the sources</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1265561700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GQ?  GQ?!?!  G-effing-Q?!?!?!?  Are you kidding me?  Beyond that, what the hell does "independently funded" mean?  The money had to come from somewhere and if it's not industry it could very well be from luddite sources.  That's no different than discounting an oil-industry-funded anti-global warming study in favor of an independent one who as it turns out fudges the data eight ways to Sunday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GQ ?
GQ ? ! ? ! G-effing-Q ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
Are you kidding me ?
Beyond that , what the hell does " independently funded " mean ?
The money had to come from somewhere and if it 's not industry it could very well be from luddite sources .
That 's no different than discounting an oil-industry-funded anti-global warming study in favor of an independent one who as it turns out fudges the data eight ways to Sunday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GQ?
GQ?!?!  G-effing-Q?!?!?!?
Are you kidding me?
Beyond that, what the hell does "independently funded" mean?
The money had to come from somewhere and if it's not industry it could very well be from luddite sources.
That's no different than discounting an oil-industry-funded anti-global warming study in favor of an independent one who as it turns out fudges the data eight ways to Sunday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050608</id>
	<title>details matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ten watts of X-rays is very bad for you.  Ten watts of microwaves directed at your eyes can blind you.  Ten watts of radio pass right through you.  And ten watts of light is nice for reading.</p><p>With EM radiation, its precise frequency and location matter a great deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten watts of X-rays is very bad for you .
Ten watts of microwaves directed at your eyes can blind you .
Ten watts of radio pass right through you .
And ten watts of light is nice for reading.With EM radiation , its precise frequency and location matter a great deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten watts of X-rays is very bad for you.
Ten watts of microwaves directed at your eyes can blind you.
Ten watts of radio pass right through you.
And ten watts of light is nice for reading.With EM radiation, its precise frequency and location matter a great deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050920</id>
	<title>GQ as a scientific journal</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265574300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I applaud the efforts of GQ to get into scientific publishing, I believe they need to be more selective in their choice of reviewers.</p><p>(What?  That's an editorial and shouldn't be presented as science?  Someone should tell that to the... um, media.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I applaud the efforts of GQ to get into scientific publishing , I believe they need to be more selective in their choice of reviewers. ( What ?
That 's an editorial and should n't be presented as science ?
Someone should tell that to the... um , media .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I applaud the efforts of GQ to get into scientific publishing, I believe they need to be more selective in their choice of reviewers.(What?
That's an editorial and shouldn't be presented as science?
Someone should tell that to the... um, media.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049694</id>
	<title>Meta-studies: beloved of the soft sciences</title>
	<author>Protoslo</author>
	<datestamp>1265468700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Experimental Procedure: We put the laboratory mice in a microwave oven and cooked on "High" for five minutes, exposing them to radiation of similar frequency to that emitted by common cellular phones.<br> <br>Results: The mice appear to be done approximately "medium."<br> <br>Conclusion: Microwave radiation is quickly fatal at doses two orders of magnitude beyond cellphone level (meta-conclusion: <i>effects were found</i>).<br> <br>This is the problem with statistical analyses such as sociologists like to perform: aggregating papers, attributing some binary conclusion to every paper, and then producing nearly meaningless percentages.  This one was compiled by a biologist, but that's the next thing to sociology anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p.  Even if actual cellphones, etc. produce effects in rats, that still doesn't mean that the same effects would be observed in humans: rats are a lot smaller.  You might as well throw humans in microwaves and call it a valid model.<br> <br>One of the scary references in the article is to a early 2000s study purporting that cellphone EM caused Alzheimer's in mice.  But wait...<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18351-cellphone-radiation-is-good-for-alzheimers-mice.html" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">Cellphones reduce mouse Alzheimer's (2009).</a> [newscientist.com] (meta-conclusion: <i>effects were found</i>).  Now, you might say that researcher is working for The Man, but he claims he was expecting the opposite result when he began.  Someone else could write a meta-study "Microwave study results rarely replicated: are biologists bad at designing and properly controlling physics experiments?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Experimental Procedure : We put the laboratory mice in a microwave oven and cooked on " High " for five minutes , exposing them to radiation of similar frequency to that emitted by common cellular phones .
Results : The mice appear to be done approximately " medium .
" Conclusion : Microwave radiation is quickly fatal at doses two orders of magnitude beyond cellphone level ( meta-conclusion : effects were found ) .
This is the problem with statistical analyses such as sociologists like to perform : aggregating papers , attributing some binary conclusion to every paper , and then producing nearly meaningless percentages .
This one was compiled by a biologist , but that 's the next thing to sociology anyway ; p. Even if actual cellphones , etc .
produce effects in rats , that still does n't mean that the same effects would be observed in humans : rats are a lot smaller .
You might as well throw humans in microwaves and call it a valid model .
One of the scary references in the article is to a early 2000s study purporting that cellphone EM caused Alzheimer 's in mice .
But wait...Cellphones reduce mouse Alzheimer 's ( 2009 ) .
[ newscientist.com ] ( meta-conclusion : effects were found ) .
Now , you might say that researcher is working for The Man , but he claims he was expecting the opposite result when he began .
Someone else could write a meta-study " Microwave study results rarely replicated : are biologists bad at designing and properly controlling physics experiments ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Experimental Procedure: We put the laboratory mice in a microwave oven and cooked on "High" for five minutes, exposing them to radiation of similar frequency to that emitted by common cellular phones.
Results: The mice appear to be done approximately "medium.
" Conclusion: Microwave radiation is quickly fatal at doses two orders of magnitude beyond cellphone level (meta-conclusion: effects were found).
This is the problem with statistical analyses such as sociologists like to perform: aggregating papers, attributing some binary conclusion to every paper, and then producing nearly meaningless percentages.
This one was compiled by a biologist, but that's the next thing to sociology anyway ;p.  Even if actual cellphones, etc.
produce effects in rats, that still doesn't mean that the same effects would be observed in humans: rats are a lot smaller.
You might as well throw humans in microwaves and call it a valid model.
One of the scary references in the article is to a early 2000s study purporting that cellphone EM caused Alzheimer's in mice.
But wait...Cellphones reduce mouse Alzheimer's (2009).
[newscientist.com] (meta-conclusion: effects were found).
Now, you might say that researcher is working for The Man, but he claims he was expecting the opposite result when he began.
Someone else could write a meta-study "Microwave study results rarely replicated: are biologists bad at designing and properly controlling physics experiments?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048914</id>
	<title>Re:Biased Reports?</title>
	<author>impaledsunset</author>
	<datestamp>1265460480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if replies such as this are an automatic reply, and if a study really confirms that cellular and WiFi signals increase the chances of cancer, without skewing the tests, would the responses on Slashdot be the same? I was about to make one like your before looking at the article, and then I thought, whoa, what if the studies were correctly executed? While I'm absolutely unconvinced that there is a link between cancer rates and microwave signals in cell phones and other wireless networks, but if a study shows the opposite I would have to reconsider this.</p><p>In this case, fortunately, it looks like out of the three studies tried to show a link, one was obviously skewed, one was complete bull, and the third I didn't bother to look at because TFA itself was full of crap (I stopped reading when I was the "Warning" idiocy). But if a study that's not obviously flawed, I'll hold my horses until someone finds the holes in it (this guys should at least try to make their studies *look* correct. Come on...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if replies such as this are an automatic reply , and if a study really confirms that cellular and WiFi signals increase the chances of cancer , without skewing the tests , would the responses on Slashdot be the same ?
I was about to make one like your before looking at the article , and then I thought , whoa , what if the studies were correctly executed ?
While I 'm absolutely unconvinced that there is a link between cancer rates and microwave signals in cell phones and other wireless networks , but if a study shows the opposite I would have to reconsider this.In this case , fortunately , it looks like out of the three studies tried to show a link , one was obviously skewed , one was complete bull , and the third I did n't bother to look at because TFA itself was full of crap ( I stopped reading when I was the " Warning " idiocy ) .
But if a study that 's not obviously flawed , I 'll hold my horses until someone finds the holes in it ( this guys should at least try to make their studies * look * correct .
Come on... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if replies such as this are an automatic reply, and if a study really confirms that cellular and WiFi signals increase the chances of cancer, without skewing the tests, would the responses on Slashdot be the same?
I was about to make one like your before looking at the article, and then I thought, whoa, what if the studies were correctly executed?
While I'm absolutely unconvinced that there is a link between cancer rates and microwave signals in cell phones and other wireless networks, but if a study shows the opposite I would have to reconsider this.In this case, fortunately, it looks like out of the three studies tried to show a link, one was obviously skewed, one was complete bull, and the third I didn't bother to look at because TFA itself was full of crap (I stopped reading when I was the "Warning" idiocy).
But if a study that's not obviously flawed, I'll hold my horses until someone finds the holes in it (this guys should at least try to make their studies *look* correct.
Come on...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051214</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1265538900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All those effects are from the UV from the welding arc. Its well known and you don't here much cus the idiot welder decided all the safety gear is only for girls with pink skirts, not a real welder. RF welding is also much lower frequency than a cell phone.
<br> <br>
How do you RF weld plastic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All those effects are from the UV from the welding arc .
Its well known and you do n't here much cus the idiot welder decided all the safety gear is only for girls with pink skirts , not a real welder .
RF welding is also much lower frequency than a cell phone .
How do you RF weld plastic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All those effects are from the UV from the welding arc.
Its well known and you don't here much cus the idiot welder decided all the safety gear is only for girls with pink skirts, not a real welder.
RF welding is also much lower frequency than a cell phone.
How do you RF weld plastic?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049044</id>
	<title>I wonder who these...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1265461740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>Independent</b> studies are funded by?</p><p>
Could it be that some of them are secretly funded by organizations of luddites?
</p><p>
It's easy to see how studies funded by wireless technology companies / wireless technology manufacturers could be biased.
</p><p>
But have the funding sources of these "independent" studies been investigated, to ensure their backers don't have an anti-RF, anti-Wireless, or anti-Cellphone agenda?
</p><p>
There are a lot of companies' who lose or are slated  to lose business as wireless technologies become ubiquitous and replace wired technology.
</p><p>
Also, there are many non-profits and government interests who would probably like to have cell phones banned.
</p><p>
Or at least require cell providers to give them a 'global off switch'  to assist with crowd control.
</p><p>
Moreover, there might be technology companies that want cell phones banned so they can make billions selling a "non-harmful wireless" technology
</p><p>
Also, being able to <b>be the study</b> to show wireless is harmful, would make the people behind the study world-known, they'd get fame notoriety, and cash, as a result of the popularity of their work.  E.g.  it would be profitable, in the form of lots of media attention, fame in peer-reviewed journals, and a great resume entry for the people heading up the study.
</p><p>
Assessments like number of studies independent VS number of studies industry funded are worthless, unless evidence can be shown that the independent studies were really funded and done by neutral parties who have zero commercial or personal interest in biasing the outcome.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Independent studies are funded by ?
Could it be that some of them are secretly funded by organizations of luddites ?
It 's easy to see how studies funded by wireless technology companies / wireless technology manufacturers could be biased .
But have the funding sources of these " independent " studies been investigated , to ensure their backers do n't have an anti-RF , anti-Wireless , or anti-Cellphone agenda ?
There are a lot of companies ' who lose or are slated to lose business as wireless technologies become ubiquitous and replace wired technology .
Also , there are many non-profits and government interests who would probably like to have cell phones banned .
Or at least require cell providers to give them a 'global off switch ' to assist with crowd control .
Moreover , there might be technology companies that want cell phones banned so they can make billions selling a " non-harmful wireless " technology Also , being able to be the study to show wireless is harmful , would make the people behind the study world-known , they 'd get fame notoriety , and cash , as a result of the popularity of their work .
E.g. it would be profitable , in the form of lots of media attention , fame in peer-reviewed journals , and a great resume entry for the people heading up the study .
Assessments like number of studies independent VS number of studies industry funded are worthless , unless evidence can be shown that the independent studies were really funded and done by neutral parties who have zero commercial or personal interest in biasing the outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Independent studies are funded by?
Could it be that some of them are secretly funded by organizations of luddites?
It's easy to see how studies funded by wireless technology companies / wireless technology manufacturers could be biased.
But have the funding sources of these "independent" studies been investigated, to ensure their backers don't have an anti-RF, anti-Wireless, or anti-Cellphone agenda?
There are a lot of companies' who lose or are slated  to lose business as wireless technologies become ubiquitous and replace wired technology.
Also, there are many non-profits and government interests who would probably like to have cell phones banned.
Or at least require cell providers to give them a 'global off switch'  to assist with crowd control.
Moreover, there might be technology companies that want cell phones banned so they can make billions selling a "non-harmful wireless" technology

Also, being able to be the study to show wireless is harmful, would make the people behind the study world-known, they'd get fame notoriety, and cash, as a result of the popularity of their work.
E.g.  it would be profitable, in the form of lots of media attention, fame in peer-reviewed journals, and a great resume entry for the people heading up the study.
Assessments like number of studies independent VS number of studies industry funded are worthless, unless evidence can be shown that the independent studies were really funded and done by neutral parties who have zero commercial or personal interest in biasing the outcome.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048928</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mostly agree with you but be careful before using sunbathing as an example.  UV light can over a very long period of time increase the risk of skin cancer.  The reason is that UV light is capable of breaking molecular bonds while the microwave bands used in a multitude of applications are far far too low in energy to do anything of the sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mostly agree with you but be careful before using sunbathing as an example .
UV light can over a very long period of time increase the risk of skin cancer .
The reason is that UV light is capable of breaking molecular bonds while the microwave bands used in a multitude of applications are far far too low in energy to do anything of the sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mostly agree with you but be careful before using sunbathing as an example.
UV light can over a very long period of time increase the risk of skin cancer.
The reason is that UV light is capable of breaking molecular bonds while the microwave bands used in a multitude of applications are far far too low in energy to do anything of the sort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055468</id>
	<title>Frey of the Frey Effect</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1265541480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That GQ article is interesting because of the interview with Allan Frey.</p><p>He's interesting because of his MKULTRA-era research on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frey\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">microwave auditory effect</a> [wikipedia.org], which raises all sorts of questions about what might have been done with that technology by the US military.</p><p>Also of note is his work on microwaves and the blood-brain barrier, which seems like it might be a useful way to increase the efficiency of psychoactive drugs for interrogations.</p><p>This kind of stuff is *literal* tin-foil hat territory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That GQ article is interesting because of the interview with Allan Frey.He 's interesting because of his MKULTRA-era research on the microwave auditory effect [ wikipedia.org ] , which raises all sorts of questions about what might have been done with that technology by the US military.Also of note is his work on microwaves and the blood-brain barrier , which seems like it might be a useful way to increase the efficiency of psychoactive drugs for interrogations.This kind of stuff is * literal * tin-foil hat territory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That GQ article is interesting because of the interview with Allan Frey.He's interesting because of his MKULTRA-era research on the microwave auditory effect [wikipedia.org], which raises all sorts of questions about what might have been done with that technology by the US military.Also of note is his work on microwaves and the blood-brain barrier, which seems like it might be a useful way to increase the efficiency of psychoactive drugs for interrogations.This kind of stuff is *literal* tin-foil hat territory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050144</id>
	<title>WTB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265474580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the market for an obscene amount of aluminum foil for a "project".<br>PM quote to AC@/.org</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the market for an obscene amount of aluminum foil for a " project " .PM quote to AC @ /.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the market for an obscene amount of aluminum foil for a "project".PM quote to AC@/.org
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052560</id>
	<title>State of Fear</title>
	<author>frank249</author>
	<datestamp>1265560020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Michael Crichton pointed out that years ago there was a huge panic over the incidence of cancer of people living near power lines.  After years of lawsuits and research it was determined that power line radiation was no danger but this was after $25 billion was wasted.  His sub text was that there are lots of people who have a vested interest in keeping people in fear.  After watching the media hype that the world was about to end every second day, I have to wonder if he was not on to something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Crichton pointed out that years ago there was a huge panic over the incidence of cancer of people living near power lines .
After years of lawsuits and research it was determined that power line radiation was no danger but this was after $ 25 billion was wasted .
His sub text was that there are lots of people who have a vested interest in keeping people in fear .
After watching the media hype that the world was about to end every second day , I have to wonder if he was not on to something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Crichton pointed out that years ago there was a huge panic over the incidence of cancer of people living near power lines.
After years of lawsuits and research it was determined that power line radiation was no danger but this was after $25 billion was wasted.
His sub text was that there are lots of people who have a vested interest in keeping people in fear.
After watching the media hype that the world was about to end every second day, I have to wonder if he was not on to something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051678</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265547060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just responded to another one of the silly classical conspiracy theories that the fringe ideological preachers of politics like to promulgate. You can recognise such a victim by his use of extreme pseudo-philosophical but ultimately empty rhetoric: "tilt strongly to the left", "post-modernist concept", "inherently hostile to the economically productive". Is he trying to say that scientists hate the rich? Is he ignoring that the very studies presented in this article, particularly from the Nordic countries with their greater individual welfare provisions, mostly speak in favour of mobile 'phones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just responded to another one of the silly classical conspiracy theories that the fringe ideological preachers of politics like to promulgate .
You can recognise such a victim by his use of extreme pseudo-philosophical but ultimately empty rhetoric : " tilt strongly to the left " , " post-modernist concept " , " inherently hostile to the economically productive " .
Is he trying to say that scientists hate the rich ?
Is he ignoring that the very studies presented in this article , particularly from the Nordic countries with their greater individual welfare provisions , mostly speak in favour of mobile 'phones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just responded to another one of the silly classical conspiracy theories that the fringe ideological preachers of politics like to promulgate.
You can recognise such a victim by his use of extreme pseudo-philosophical but ultimately empty rhetoric: "tilt strongly to the left", "post-modernist concept", "inherently hostile to the economically productive".
Is he trying to say that scientists hate the rich?
Is he ignoring that the very studies presented in this article, particularly from the Nordic countries with their greater individual welfare provisions, mostly speak in favour of mobile 'phones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048902</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265460360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that bin Laden takes many call either... guess we'll have to find another way to get him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that bin Laden takes many call either... guess we 'll have to find another way to get him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that bin Laden takes many call either... guess we'll have to find another way to get him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049090</id>
	<title>Re:GQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265462040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I always go to Gentleman's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure.</p></div><p>And being a Slashdot poster I'm assuming you get fashion tips fro Scientific American?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I always go to Gentleman 's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure.And being a Slashdot poster I 'm assuming you get fashion tips fro Scientific American ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I always go to Gentleman's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure.And being a Slashdot poster I'm assuming you get fashion tips fro Scientific American?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049174</id>
	<title>900mhz-1ghz Can Cause problems.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265462700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> A study at Cleveland clinic shows that the blood brain barrier opens for up to 24hrs after being exposed to radiation at low levels. So chemicals that might cause cancer that normally get through do.<br>
&nbsp; But this was only at 900MHZ to 1 GHZ frequencies.  My wife had an old cell phone in that range for her only phone for a number of years.</p><p>She died 5 years ago of brain tumors. Doctors off the record say I may just have something they might want to do a study on.</p><p>
&nbsp; AT&amp;T model34183narea motorola phone. Was recalled but she never got a notice.<br>
&nbsp; They should have shut off phone service till she brought it in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A study at Cleveland clinic shows that the blood brain barrier opens for up to 24hrs after being exposed to radiation at low levels .
So chemicals that might cause cancer that normally get through do .
  But this was only at 900MHZ to 1 GHZ frequencies .
My wife had an old cell phone in that range for her only phone for a number of years.She died 5 years ago of brain tumors .
Doctors off the record say I may just have something they might want to do a study on .
  AT&amp;T model34183narea motorola phone .
Was recalled but she never got a notice .
  They should have shut off phone service till she brought it in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A study at Cleveland clinic shows that the blood brain barrier opens for up to 24hrs after being exposed to radiation at low levels.
So chemicals that might cause cancer that normally get through do.
  But this was only at 900MHZ to 1 GHZ frequencies.
My wife had an old cell phone in that range for her only phone for a number of years.She died 5 years ago of brain tumors.
Doctors off the record say I may just have something they might want to do a study on.
  AT&amp;T model34183narea motorola phone.
Was recalled but she never got a notice.
  They should have shut off phone service till she brought it in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055670</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>Shannon Love</author>
	<datestamp>1265542920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything you say is true however a large number of these "meta" studies are actually done by sociologist and other "soft" scientist who are in the school of liberals arts which is the dominated literally 9 to 1 by extreme leftist. A recent poll of academics found that 17.4\% of American academics in the liberal-arts  self-identified as marxist.  These people are often quoted as "experts" and "researchers" in the media even if they are commenting on matters far outside their field.</p><p>With in the technical fields (fields controlled ulitmately by perfomance instead of popularity) like engineering, the science and business, there almost an even balance between left and right. However, academics in all fields are statistically a good bit to the left of their counterparts in non-academic world.</p><p>My main point was to remind people that there are more motives for the deceptions oneself and others than just profit motive. More importantly, motives are illrelevent to the ultimate validity of science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything you say is true however a large number of these " meta " studies are actually done by sociologist and other " soft " scientist who are in the school of liberals arts which is the dominated literally 9 to 1 by extreme leftist .
A recent poll of academics found that 17.4 \ % of American academics in the liberal-arts self-identified as marxist .
These people are often quoted as " experts " and " researchers " in the media even if they are commenting on matters far outside their field.With in the technical fields ( fields controlled ulitmately by perfomance instead of popularity ) like engineering , the science and business , there almost an even balance between left and right .
However , academics in all fields are statistically a good bit to the left of their counterparts in non-academic world.My main point was to remind people that there are more motives for the deceptions oneself and others than just profit motive .
More importantly , motives are illrelevent to the ultimate validity of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything you say is true however a large number of these "meta" studies are actually done by sociologist and other "soft" scientist who are in the school of liberals arts which is the dominated literally 9 to 1 by extreme leftist.
A recent poll of academics found that 17.4\% of American academics in the liberal-arts  self-identified as marxist.
These people are often quoted as "experts" and "researchers" in the media even if they are commenting on matters far outside their field.With in the technical fields (fields controlled ulitmately by perfomance instead of popularity) like engineering, the science and business, there almost an even balance between left and right.
However, academics in all fields are statistically a good bit to the left of their counterparts in non-academic world.My main point was to remind people that there are more motives for the deceptions oneself and others than just profit motive.
More importantly, motives are illrelevent to the ultimate validity of science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049590</id>
	<title>Needed: explanation for Alzheimer's reversal study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265467260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-phones-alzheimers-disease-mice.html" title="nationalgeographic.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-phones-alzheimers-disease-mice.html</a> [nationalgeographic.com]</p><p>The challenge is to explain this effect as due simply to heating, or else to discover a microwave-pumped or microwave-inhibited reaction path at this signal level.</p><p>No one's surprised that microwave fields can change the outcome of a chemical reaction, favoring one reaction product over another by favoring certain molecular configurations, thereby making some reactions more probable than in the absence of the microwave pumping.  It's routine industrial chemistry, you can look it up.</p><p>Why this can't happen in the brain remains to be determined, although it's much asserted.</p><p>---<br>the spam filter word for this posting, thankew AI, is "abstain"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-phones-alzheimers-disease-mice.html [ nationalgeographic.com ] The challenge is to explain this effect as due simply to heating , or else to discover a microwave-pumped or microwave-inhibited reaction path at this signal level.No one 's surprised that microwave fields can change the outcome of a chemical reaction , favoring one reaction product over another by favoring certain molecular configurations , thereby making some reactions more probable than in the absence of the microwave pumping .
It 's routine industrial chemistry , you can look it up.Why this ca n't happen in the brain remains to be determined , although it 's much asserted.---the spam filter word for this posting , thankew AI , is " abstain "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-phones-alzheimers-disease-mice.html [nationalgeographic.com]The challenge is to explain this effect as due simply to heating, or else to discover a microwave-pumped or microwave-inhibited reaction path at this signal level.No one's surprised that microwave fields can change the outcome of a chemical reaction, favoring one reaction product over another by favoring certain molecular configurations, thereby making some reactions more probable than in the absence of the microwave pumping.
It's routine industrial chemistry, you can look it up.Why this can't happen in the brain remains to be determined, although it's much asserted.---the spam filter word for this posting, thankew AI, is "abstain"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050638</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Exposure to all types of radio range radiation has increased by literally millions of times since WWII</i></p><p>Limits for exposure to microwaves are tight, so that hasn't increased.</p><p>In any case, cell phones are probably not "dangerous" in any real sense; nevertheless, microwaves may still be able to cause cancer at low rates.  Many other products do an we still use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exposure to all types of radio range radiation has increased by literally millions of times since WWIILimits for exposure to microwaves are tight , so that has n't increased.In any case , cell phones are probably not " dangerous " in any real sense ; nevertheless , microwaves may still be able to cause cancer at low rates .
Many other products do an we still use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exposure to all types of radio range radiation has increased by literally millions of times since WWIILimits for exposure to microwaves are tight, so that hasn't increased.In any case, cell phones are probably not "dangerous" in any real sense; nevertheless, microwaves may still be able to cause cancer at low rates.
Many other products do an we still use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31068874</id>
	<title>Re:Biased Reports?</title>
	<author>sarkeizen</author>
	<datestamp>1265651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting how it seems, at least to me that the population at Slashdot is pretty quick to question the directionality of a study by pointing out that correlation does not imply causation.   But when it comes to things like funding biasing people - I don't observe the same readiness.  Even though when the claim is made that is essentially the same as saying that correlation does imply causation.
<br> <br>
The only study I know of on this subject generally, was done by Eggers, et al. and IIRC they were pretty clear that you can only tell from the data that a bias exists but you can't tell if studies that have industry funding are biased toward industry or if non-industry funded studies are biased toward non-industry agendas.  One thing they did say that their study suggested was that studies that had mixed funding turned out "higher quality" data.  Again, calling on my memory here this was in reference to things like correlation coefficients.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting how it seems , at least to me that the population at Slashdot is pretty quick to question the directionality of a study by pointing out that correlation does not imply causation .
But when it comes to things like funding biasing people - I do n't observe the same readiness .
Even though when the claim is made that is essentially the same as saying that correlation does imply causation .
The only study I know of on this subject generally , was done by Eggers , et al .
and IIRC they were pretty clear that you can only tell from the data that a bias exists but you ca n't tell if studies that have industry funding are biased toward industry or if non-industry funded studies are biased toward non-industry agendas .
One thing they did say that their study suggested was that studies that had mixed funding turned out " higher quality " data .
Again , calling on my memory here this was in reference to things like correlation coefficients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting how it seems, at least to me that the population at Slashdot is pretty quick to question the directionality of a study by pointing out that correlation does not imply causation.
But when it comes to things like funding biasing people - I don't observe the same readiness.
Even though when the claim is made that is essentially the same as saying that correlation does imply causation.
The only study I know of on this subject generally, was done by Eggers, et al.
and IIRC they were pretty clear that you can only tell from the data that a bias exists but you can't tell if studies that have industry funding are biased toward industry or if non-industry funded studies are biased toward non-industry agendas.
One thing they did say that their study suggested was that studies that had mixed funding turned out "higher quality" data.
Again, calling on my memory here this was in reference to things like correlation coefficients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051530</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1265544240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>nobel motives</p></div></blockquote><p>Hah!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nobel motivesHah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nobel motivesHah!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050340</id>
	<title>CC skeptics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a good litmus test i use for judging how credible someones opinion is, is how certain they are.</p><p>Evinvironmental scientists: "climate change is happening, its probably/appears to be/etc caused by humans" = reasonable</p><p>Climate change skeptics: "there is NO WAY that we made climate change happen" = dubious</p><p>Science is rarely certain. So why should arguments against climate change be so certain and final? Because skeptics are idiots. tyvm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a good litmus test i use for judging how credible someones opinion is , is how certain they are.Evinvironmental scientists : " climate change is happening , its probably/appears to be/etc caused by humans " = reasonableClimate change skeptics : " there is NO WAY that we made climate change happen " = dubiousScience is rarely certain .
So why should arguments against climate change be so certain and final ?
Because skeptics are idiots .
tyvm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a good litmus test i use for judging how credible someones opinion is, is how certain they are.Evinvironmental scientists: "climate change is happening, its probably/appears to be/etc caused by humans" = reasonableClimate change skeptics: "there is NO WAY that we made climate change happen" = dubiousScience is rarely certain.
So why should arguments against climate change be so certain and final?
Because skeptics are idiots.
tyvm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</id>
	<title>GQ?</title>
	<author>Orp</author>
	<datestamp>1265458440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I always go to Gentleman's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I always go to Gentleman 's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I always go to Gentleman's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049042</id>
	<title>Who would know better if cellphones cause cancer</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1265461680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... than an anonymous neurosurgeon?</p><p>Did I miss something?</p><p>I couldn't find one reference to a study published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last 10 years that claimed to rule out association.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... than an anonymous neurosurgeon ? Did I miss something ? I could n't find one reference to a study published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last 10 years that claimed to rule out association .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... than an anonymous neurosurgeon?Did I miss something?I couldn't find one reference to a study published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last 10 years that claimed to rule out association.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31056604</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1265551500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With in the technical fields (fields controlled ulitmately by perfomance instead of popularity) like engineering, the science and business, there almost an even balance between left and right.</p></div><p>Definitely not my experience in the physical sciences.  We definitely lean left, at least among the people who speak up about politics.</p><p>Do you have any sources to back your claims up (going back to, ideally, your claim that academics (which you didn't define) being against economic productivity)?  Your claims sound authoritative, unless you know actual academics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With in the technical fields ( fields controlled ulitmately by perfomance instead of popularity ) like engineering , the science and business , there almost an even balance between left and right.Definitely not my experience in the physical sciences .
We definitely lean left , at least among the people who speak up about politics.Do you have any sources to back your claims up ( going back to , ideally , your claim that academics ( which you did n't define ) being against economic productivity ) ?
Your claims sound authoritative , unless you know actual academics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With in the technical fields (fields controlled ulitmately by perfomance instead of popularity) like engineering, the science and business, there almost an even balance between left and right.Definitely not my experience in the physical sciences.
We definitely lean left, at least among the people who speak up about politics.Do you have any sources to back your claims up (going back to, ideally, your claim that academics (which you didn't define) being against economic productivity)?
Your claims sound authoritative, unless you know actual academics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049420</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1265465040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+6 informative</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 6 informative</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+6 informative</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050908</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1265573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where the towers turned on or off at the time of the study.</p><p><a href="http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html" title="mybroadband.co.za">http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html</a> [mybroadband.co.za]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the towers turned on or off at the time of the study.http : //mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html [ mybroadband.co.za ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the towers turned on or off at the time of the study.http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html [mybroadband.co.za]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052782</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism is a religion</title>
	<author>Eric S. Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1265563080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Commercial organizations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... tend to have a higher regard for logic...</p></div></blockquote><p>[<i>citation needed</i>]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial organizations ... tend to have a higher regard for logic... [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial organizations ... tend to have a higher regard for logic...[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049990</id>
	<title>funding realities</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1265472960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My initial time at undergrad university thru to Masters was in German Literature back in the day. Then computers came along and I was hooked by this magical technology(PDP-11 days).<br> <br> Over the coming years I worked thru a Comp Sci degree, Post Grad work, and more in GIS(info in Geographic Info Systems). All the while also doing part time work back at the old dept teaching German Lit. I have been  out of academia and in the industry for 15 years now.
<br> <br>But the Comp Sci gave me research exposure to the Food Research Industry.<br> <br> Research, scholorships, and funding in the Arts we almost pure in their implementation. Food research and funding was rotten to the core. I have been on the recieving end of table thumping food industry ceo's. You are then told to bend over, take it, then go inform relevant parties of desired outcomes.<br> <br> Thank christ I am out of that sewer.<br> <br>In todays world I can only imagine what jewels lie in the communications gold veins and how that drives research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My initial time at undergrad university thru to Masters was in German Literature back in the day .
Then computers came along and I was hooked by this magical technology ( PDP-11 days ) .
Over the coming years I worked thru a Comp Sci degree , Post Grad work , and more in GIS ( info in Geographic Info Systems ) .
All the while also doing part time work back at the old dept teaching German Lit .
I have been out of academia and in the industry for 15 years now .
But the Comp Sci gave me research exposure to the Food Research Industry .
Research , scholorships , and funding in the Arts we almost pure in their implementation .
Food research and funding was rotten to the core .
I have been on the recieving end of table thumping food industry ceo 's .
You are then told to bend over , take it , then go inform relevant parties of desired outcomes .
Thank christ I am out of that sewer .
In todays world I can only imagine what jewels lie in the communications gold veins and how that drives research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My initial time at undergrad university thru to Masters was in German Literature back in the day.
Then computers came along and I was hooked by this magical technology(PDP-11 days).
Over the coming years I worked thru a Comp Sci degree, Post Grad work, and more in GIS(info in Geographic Info Systems).
All the while also doing part time work back at the old dept teaching German Lit.
I have been  out of academia and in the industry for 15 years now.
But the Comp Sci gave me research exposure to the Food Research Industry.
Research, scholorships, and funding in the Arts we almost pure in their implementation.
Food research and funding was rotten to the core.
I have been on the recieving end of table thumping food industry ceo's.
You are then told to bend over, take it, then go inform relevant parties of desired outcomes.
Thank christ I am out of that sewer.
In todays world I can only imagine what jewels lie in the communications gold veins and how that drives research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</id>
	<title>It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>Shannon Love</author>
	<datestamp>1265460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1) Based on the standard rules of statistical acceptance, a study only has to reach requires a 95\% confidence level. That means that 1 in every 20 identical studies will produce a false positive merely by chance. When you have an area of study in which thousands of studies have been done over decades you end up with hundreds of studies reporting positive results just by chance.</p><p>(2) Statistical meta analysis of studies is largely nonsense unless your talking about a field in which nearly identical studies are done over and over again. Usually, when these meta studies hit the media you find they they equally weight to every study regardless of presumed rigor of the studies. In this case, the gold standard is the Swedish study that followed tens of thousands of people over decades. How to you compare that to a study that just data mined a few hundred medical records?</p><p>(3) Exposure to all types of radio range radiation has increased by literally millions of times since WWII. We know spend something close to 3\% of our entire energy budget generating radio signals. Yet, in the last 50+ years, cancers rates have not increased and indeed most likely have fallen (especially when you exclude cigarette smoking.</p><p>(4) A a sociological matter, just because a study is not linked to an industry does not mean that the researchers or the people funding them are some how impartial or operating from nobel motives. A lot of people outside of industry have both inherent biases as well as professional and monetary incentive to distort science. Academic today tilt strongly to the left side of the political spectrum and many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have, such as that held by respected scientist, to advance their political beliefs. They are inherently hostile to the economically productive. Politicians have incentives to create crises to protect voters from. Trial lawyers stand to make hundreds of millions on law suits and they fund "studies" to contaminate the jury pool. Even competing industries can use studies to undermine competitors.</p><p>We should remember that science has its reputation because it produces the same answer regardless of the individual motives of the people who create it. When someone begins the question the motives of researchers, they are making an implicit statement that they have no science to back their position up and that they must instead fall back to human factors. If you have solid science, then you don't need to smear people's motives and call their integrity into question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Based on the standard rules of statistical acceptance , a study only has to reach requires a 95 \ % confidence level .
That means that 1 in every 20 identical studies will produce a false positive merely by chance .
When you have an area of study in which thousands of studies have been done over decades you end up with hundreds of studies reporting positive results just by chance .
( 2 ) Statistical meta analysis of studies is largely nonsense unless your talking about a field in which nearly identical studies are done over and over again .
Usually , when these meta studies hit the media you find they they equally weight to every study regardless of presumed rigor of the studies .
In this case , the gold standard is the Swedish study that followed tens of thousands of people over decades .
How to you compare that to a study that just data mined a few hundred medical records ?
( 3 ) Exposure to all types of radio range radiation has increased by literally millions of times since WWII .
We know spend something close to 3 \ % of our entire energy budget generating radio signals .
Yet , in the last 50 + years , cancers rates have not increased and indeed most likely have fallen ( especially when you exclude cigarette smoking .
( 4 ) A a sociological matter , just because a study is not linked to an industry does not mean that the researchers or the people funding them are some how impartial or operating from nobel motives .
A lot of people outside of industry have both inherent biases as well as professional and monetary incentive to distort science .
Academic today tilt strongly to the left side of the political spectrum and many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have , such as that held by respected scientist , to advance their political beliefs .
They are inherently hostile to the economically productive .
Politicians have incentives to create crises to protect voters from .
Trial lawyers stand to make hundreds of millions on law suits and they fund " studies " to contaminate the jury pool .
Even competing industries can use studies to undermine competitors.We should remember that science has its reputation because it produces the same answer regardless of the individual motives of the people who create it .
When someone begins the question the motives of researchers , they are making an implicit statement that they have no science to back their position up and that they must instead fall back to human factors .
If you have solid science , then you do n't need to smear people 's motives and call their integrity into question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) Based on the standard rules of statistical acceptance, a study only has to reach requires a 95\% confidence level.
That means that 1 in every 20 identical studies will produce a false positive merely by chance.
When you have an area of study in which thousands of studies have been done over decades you end up with hundreds of studies reporting positive results just by chance.
(2) Statistical meta analysis of studies is largely nonsense unless your talking about a field in which nearly identical studies are done over and over again.
Usually, when these meta studies hit the media you find they they equally weight to every study regardless of presumed rigor of the studies.
In this case, the gold standard is the Swedish study that followed tens of thousands of people over decades.
How to you compare that to a study that just data mined a few hundred medical records?
(3) Exposure to all types of radio range radiation has increased by literally millions of times since WWII.
We know spend something close to 3\% of our entire energy budget generating radio signals.
Yet, in the last 50+ years, cancers rates have not increased and indeed most likely have fallen (especially when you exclude cigarette smoking.
(4) A a sociological matter, just because a study is not linked to an industry does not mean that the researchers or the people funding them are some how impartial or operating from nobel motives.
A lot of people outside of industry have both inherent biases as well as professional and monetary incentive to distort science.
Academic today tilt strongly to the left side of the political spectrum and many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have, such as that held by respected scientist, to advance their political beliefs.
They are inherently hostile to the economically productive.
Politicians have incentives to create crises to protect voters from.
Trial lawyers stand to make hundreds of millions on law suits and they fund "studies" to contaminate the jury pool.
Even competing industries can use studies to undermine competitors.We should remember that science has its reputation because it produces the same answer regardless of the individual motives of the people who create it.
When someone begins the question the motives of researchers, they are making an implicit statement that they have no science to back their position up and that they must instead fall back to human factors.
If you have solid science, then you don't need to smear people's motives and call their integrity into question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049304</id>
	<title>How do they prove it</title>
	<author>GrumpySteen</author>
	<datestamp>1265463960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if there is a link, how can they be sure it's not due to exposure to chemicals given off by the plastic of the phone?  Nothing in any of the studies I've seen would rule out chemical causes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if there is a link , how can they be sure it 's not due to exposure to chemicals given off by the plastic of the phone ?
Nothing in any of the studies I 've seen would rule out chemical causes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if there is a link, how can they be sure it's not due to exposure to chemicals given off by the plastic of the phone?
Nothing in any of the studies I've seen would rule out chemical causes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050314</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>S-4'N3</author>
	<datestamp>1265477100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gotta say that I was really disappointed that GQ printed the article. I normally have great respect for their journalism, however in printing this it seems like a cheap shot at selling more magazines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ta say that I was really disappointed that GQ printed the article .
I normally have great respect for their journalism , however in printing this it seems like a cheap shot at selling more magazines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotta say that I was really disappointed that GQ printed the article.
I normally have great respect for their journalism, however in printing this it seems like a cheap shot at selling more magazines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</id>
	<title>Matters not</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1265458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It matters not one whit how many studies show result X.  What matters is what is shown by peer-reviewed studies done under controlled circumstances and having a significant sample size.</p><p>For example 100 studies done shoddily using sample sizes of 3, 4, and 6 subjects do not outweigh one ten-year study across 1,000 subjects.</p><p>Now just on general principles, if one watt of radio energy was harmful, you'd think that people like RF welders, tower steeplejacks, plasma researchers, and radar disk repairers wolsd be covered in suppurating pustules.  But they're not.  Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.</p><p>So I suggest you use GQ to check up on the latest fashions, maybe not so much on the best science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters not one whit how many studies show result X. What matters is what is shown by peer-reviewed studies done under controlled circumstances and having a significant sample size.For example 100 studies done shoddily using sample sizes of 3 , 4 , and 6 subjects do not outweigh one ten-year study across 1,000 subjects.Now just on general principles , if one watt of radio energy was harmful , you 'd think that people like RF welders , tower steeplejacks , plasma researchers , and radar disk repairers wolsd be covered in suppurating pustules .
But they 're not .
Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons ( sunbathers , cowboys ) , they do just fine.So I suggest you use GQ to check up on the latest fashions , maybe not so much on the best science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters not one whit how many studies show result X.  What matters is what is shown by peer-reviewed studies done under controlled circumstances and having a significant sample size.For example 100 studies done shoddily using sample sizes of 3, 4, and 6 subjects do not outweigh one ten-year study across 1,000 subjects.Now just on general principles, if one watt of radio energy was harmful, you'd think that people like RF welders, tower steeplejacks, plasma researchers, and radar disk repairers wolsd be covered in suppurating pustules.
But they're not.
Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.So I suggest you use GQ to check up on the latest fashions, maybe not so much on the best science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049720</id>
	<title>15 years of no conclusions</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1265469120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people have been studying this for at least 15 years.  We have billions of people talking on cell phones now.</p><p>If we're still wondering whether they're dangerous after all this time and all these users, isn't it clear that the danger, if any, is very small?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people have been studying this for at least 15 years .
We have billions of people talking on cell phones now.If we 're still wondering whether they 're dangerous after all this time and all these users , is n't it clear that the danger , if any , is very small ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people have been studying this for at least 15 years.
We have billions of people talking on cell phones now.If we're still wondering whether they're dangerous after all this time and all these users, isn't it clear that the danger, if any, is very small?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048712</id>
	<title>Biased Reports?</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1265458740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely not.  People skewing tests in accordance with funding would never happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely not .
People skewing tests in accordance with funding would never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely not.
People skewing tests in accordance with funding would never happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048740</id>
	<title>Obama has doomed his party.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't wait to kick some jackasses out of office! Yeah boy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait to kick some jackasses out of office !
Yeah boy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait to kick some jackasses out of office!
Yeah boy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050708</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1265482680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WooHoo! I'm safe!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Beacuse nobody calls me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div><p>a/s/l???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WooHoo !
I 'm safe !
...Beacuse nobody calls me : ( a/s/l ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WooHoo!
I'm safe!
...Beacuse nobody calls me :(a/s/l??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051320</id>
	<title>"independent" funding from Greenpeace</title>
	<author>matushorvath</author>
	<datestamp>1265540520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those "independently" funded studies of course include studies paid for by "green" organizations that have an agenda of their own. If you separate industry funded reports, you also have to separate those, otherwise your results are completely bogus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those " independently " funded studies of course include studies paid for by " green " organizations that have an agenda of their own .
If you separate industry funded reports , you also have to separate those , otherwise your results are completely bogus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those "independently" funded studies of course include studies paid for by "green" organizations that have an agenda of their own.
If you separate industry funded reports, you also have to separate those, otherwise your results are completely bogus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049018</id>
	<title>Insulation.</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1265461500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This brings up what would be a desirable setup:  Insulate the scientists doing the studies from the sources of funding.  A bit of bureaucracy is the price to pay for greater truth.  Industry wanks put their money into a committee to fund studies in predetermined areas.  Scientists apply to the committee and receive funds from it with no future consequences because of the results they find.  The committee decides who actually gets the money not the industry lackey who decided it needed to be studied.  This would greatly root out the "self-confirming" type of study while still getting studies done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings up what would be a desirable setup : Insulate the scientists doing the studies from the sources of funding .
A bit of bureaucracy is the price to pay for greater truth .
Industry wanks put their money into a committee to fund studies in predetermined areas .
Scientists apply to the committee and receive funds from it with no future consequences because of the results they find .
The committee decides who actually gets the money not the industry lackey who decided it needed to be studied .
This would greatly root out the " self-confirming " type of study while still getting studies done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings up what would be a desirable setup:  Insulate the scientists doing the studies from the sources of funding.
A bit of bureaucracy is the price to pay for greater truth.
Industry wanks put their money into a committee to fund studies in predetermined areas.
Scientists apply to the committee and receive funds from it with no future consequences because of the results they find.
The committee decides who actually gets the money not the industry lackey who decided it needed to be studied.
This would greatly root out the "self-confirming" type of study while still getting studies done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051696</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1265547360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering this:<br>
<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med\_tel\_mob\_cel\_percap-telephones-mobile-cellular-per-capita" title="nationmaster.com">http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med\_tel\_mob\_cel\_percap-telephones-mobile-cellular-per-capita</a> [nationmaster.com]

<br>The global average number of functioning cell phones per person is 0.6~... I am surprised 50\% of all of us have not gotten cancer yet. In fact, countries like the US take the number to the extreme, with 1000 cell phones per person! With these numbers I can safely claim that there is not even a correlation between cell phone use and cancer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering this : http : //www.nationmaster.com/graph/med \ _tel \ _mob \ _cel \ _percap-telephones-mobile-cellular-per-capita [ nationmaster.com ] The global average number of functioning cell phones per person is 0.6 ~ ... I am surprised 50 \ % of all of us have not gotten cancer yet .
In fact , countries like the US take the number to the extreme , with 1000 cell phones per person !
With these numbers I can safely claim that there is not even a correlation between cell phone use and cancer : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med\_tel\_mob\_cel\_percap-telephones-mobile-cellular-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

The global average number of functioning cell phones per person is 0.6~... I am surprised 50\% of all of us have not gotten cancer yet.
In fact, countries like the US take the number to the extreme, with 1000 cell phones per person!
With these numbers I can safely claim that there is not even a correlation between cell phone use and cancer :/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</id>
	<title>WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Beacuse nobody calls me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Beacuse nobody calls me : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Beacuse nobody calls me :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049490</id>
	<title>IF this is right, what could I use instead of WiFi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265465880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us assume this is correct.  What could I use in place of WiFi in my house?  Could I use a router that has RF adapter to transmit internet connectivity through the power plugs?  Would this be better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us assume this is correct .
What could I use in place of WiFi in my house ?
Could I use a router that has RF adapter to transmit internet connectivity through the power plugs ?
Would this be better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us assume this is correct.
What could I use in place of WiFi in my house?
Could I use a router that has RF adapter to transmit internet connectivity through the power plugs?
Would this be better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048728</id>
	<title>I know I'm safe...</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265458860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because I have a hands-free phone setup in my car. I just mow over other people when they cross the street and some bitch is breaking up with me over the phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because I have a hands-free phone setup in my car .
I just mow over other people when they cross the street and some bitch is breaking up with me over the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because I have a hands-free phone setup in my car.
I just mow over other people when they cross the street and some bitch is breaking up with me over the phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31053568</id>
	<title>Previous Article</title>
	<author>rosesaremine</author>
	<datestamp>1265570160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For everyone here arguing that a cellphone has no/negligible effect on the brain see this article<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....

<a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the-cellphone-radiation-controversy-takes-a-new-turn/2667/" title="smartplanet.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the-cellphone-radiation-controversy-takes-a-new-turn/2667/</a> [smartplanet.com]

If cellular radiation can break down beta blockers (causing Alzheimer's disease) how can we even begin to think that it does not have an effect on our brain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For everyone here arguing that a cellphone has no/negligible effect on the brain see this article ... . http : //www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the-cellphone-radiation-controversy-takes-a-new-turn/2667/ [ smartplanet.com ] If cellular radiation can break down beta blockers ( causing Alzheimer 's disease ) how can we even begin to think that it does not have an effect on our brain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everyone here arguing that a cellphone has no/negligible effect on the brain see this article ....

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the-cellphone-radiation-controversy-takes-a-new-turn/2667/ [smartplanet.com]

If cellular radiation can break down beta blockers (causing Alzheimer's disease) how can we even begin to think that it does not have an effect on our brain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051328</id>
	<title>Re:CC skeptics</title>
	<author>matushorvath</author>
	<datestamp>1265540640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2+2 probably/appears to be 5</p><p>2+2 NO WAY can be 5</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 + 2 probably/appears to be 52 + 2 NO WAY can be 5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2+2 probably/appears to be 52+2 NO WAY can be 5</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049008</id>
	<title>Wrong variable</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1265461440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The relevant finding is the funding-induced bias rather than biological effect of WiFi.  Bias need not be conscious one to seep into the result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The relevant finding is the funding-induced bias rather than biological effect of WiFi .
Bias need not be conscious one to seep into the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The relevant finding is the funding-induced bias rather than biological effect of WiFi.
Bias need not be conscious one to seep into the result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31075058</id>
	<title>Causes cancer but treats Alzmeimer's?</title>
	<author>WindShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1265742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few days ago we had a study showing that cell phone radiation <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/07/1812250/Cellphone-Radiation-May-Protect-Brain-From-Alzheimers" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">protects the brain against Alzheimer's in rodents</a> [slashdot.org] and now other studies suggest that it causes cancer. I suspect that some (or all) of these are cases of "too much number crunching and too little data."</p><p>Sounds a little like the <i>Face on Mars</i> or laying on your back and finding images in clouds. Any set of noisy data will show anything you wish when analyzed with the proper algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few days ago we had a study showing that cell phone radiation protects the brain against Alzheimer 's in rodents [ slashdot.org ] and now other studies suggest that it causes cancer .
I suspect that some ( or all ) of these are cases of " too much number crunching and too little data .
" Sounds a little like the Face on Mars or laying on your back and finding images in clouds .
Any set of noisy data will show anything you wish when analyzed with the proper algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few days ago we had a study showing that cell phone radiation protects the brain against Alzheimer's in rodents [slashdot.org] and now other studies suggest that it causes cancer.
I suspect that some (or all) of these are cases of "too much number crunching and too little data.
"Sounds a little like the Face on Mars or laying on your back and finding images in clouds.
Any set of noisy data will show anything you wish when analyzed with the proper algorithm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049816</id>
	<title>"Independently funded" doesn't mean "unbiased"</title>
	<author>Antaeus Feldspar</author>
	<datestamp>1265470800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to RTFA but it's densely packed in an unfriendly typeface and when I opened it up, I immediately saw warning signs of conspiracy-mongering (<i>Hey, this guy publishes an "investigative newsletter" called </i>Microwave News<i>!  And he has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT!  That means if he says that the science is 100\% solid about cell phones causing harm, he must be right, because God knows no one who got a doctorate at MIT </i>ever<i> got convinced of some cockamamie theory and started "investigative newsletters" to pursue some non-existent threat!</i>) and research fail ("The "hearing," however, didn't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain's cells, which generate tiny electrical fields."  First of all, any time someone mentions the Frey effect, 80\% of the time you're about to hear schizophrenic ranting about government mind control transmissions.  Second of all, the author seems to have made up the theory that the Frey effect happens because of EM waves interacting with brain cells; it seems quite inconsistent with Frey's own findings that there were some individuals who could not hear sounds around the frequency of 5Kc who also could not hear the "rf sounds".  If the Frey effect bypassed the ear and directly stimulated the brain, why would anyone who had a brain be unable to detect this stimulus?  Why would the people who were unable to detect this stimulus also be those with known deficiencies in their ears?  Coincidence?)</p><p>Anyways, I suspected that what I would find in the article was a situation similar to <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3073" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org">the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org], where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer, a "sub-group" of "high-quality" studies established a "significant positive association".  What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to, however, was that seven out of the eight "high-quality" studies were all done by the same researchers, a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies.  I wouldn't be surprised if at least 75\% of the "independently funded" studies in the GQ article are also by researchers who profit handsomely from testifying in similar lawsuits.  People talk about how they can't trust any studies done by "industry", but they're naive to think that litigation itself is not an industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to RTFA but it 's densely packed in an unfriendly typeface and when I opened it up , I immediately saw warning signs of conspiracy-mongering ( Hey , this guy publishes an " investigative newsletter " called Microwave News !
And he has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT !
That means if he says that the science is 100 \ % solid about cell phones causing harm , he must be right , because God knows no one who got a doctorate at MIT ever got convinced of some cockamamie theory and started " investigative newsletters " to pursue some non-existent threat !
) and research fail ( " The " hearing , " however , did n't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear .
It occurred somewhere in the brain itself , as EM waves interacted with the brain 's cells , which generate tiny electrical fields .
" First of all , any time someone mentions the Frey effect , 80 \ % of the time you 're about to hear schizophrenic ranting about government mind control transmissions .
Second of all , the author seems to have made up the theory that the Frey effect happens because of EM waves interacting with brain cells ; it seems quite inconsistent with Frey 's own findings that there were some individuals who could not hear sounds around the frequency of 5Kc who also could not hear the " rf sounds " .
If the Frey effect bypassed the ear and directly stimulated the brain , why would anyone who had a brain be unable to detect this stimulus ?
Why would the people who were unable to detect this stimulus also be those with known deficiencies in their ears ?
Coincidence ? ) Anyways , I suspected that what I would find in the article was a situation similar to the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ] , where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer , a " sub-group " of " high-quality " studies established a " significant positive association " .
What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to , however , was that seven out of the eight " high-quality " studies were all done by the same researchers , a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell , and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies .
I would n't be surprised if at least 75 \ % of the " independently funded " studies in the GQ article are also by researchers who profit handsomely from testifying in similar lawsuits .
People talk about how they ca n't trust any studies done by " industry " , but they 're naive to think that litigation itself is not an industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to RTFA but it's densely packed in an unfriendly typeface and when I opened it up, I immediately saw warning signs of conspiracy-mongering (Hey, this guy publishes an "investigative newsletter" called Microwave News!
And he has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT!
That means if he says that the science is 100\% solid about cell phones causing harm, he must be right, because God knows no one who got a doctorate at MIT ever got convinced of some cockamamie theory and started "investigative newsletters" to pursue some non-existent threat!
) and research fail ("The "hearing," however, didn't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear.
It occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain's cells, which generate tiny electrical fields.
"  First of all, any time someone mentions the Frey effect, 80\% of the time you're about to hear schizophrenic ranting about government mind control transmissions.
Second of all, the author seems to have made up the theory that the Frey effect happens because of EM waves interacting with brain cells; it seems quite inconsistent with Frey's own findings that there were some individuals who could not hear sounds around the frequency of 5Kc who also could not hear the "rf sounds".
If the Frey effect bypassed the ear and directly stimulated the brain, why would anyone who had a brain be unable to detect this stimulus?
Why would the people who were unable to detect this stimulus also be those with known deficiencies in their ears?
Coincidence?)Anyways, I suspected that what I would find in the article was a situation similar to the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies [sciencebasedmedicine.org], where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer, a "sub-group" of "high-quality" studies established a "significant positive association".
What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to, however, was that seven out of the eight "high-quality" studies were all done by the same researchers, a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least 75\% of the "independently funded" studies in the GQ article are also by researchers who profit handsomely from testifying in similar lawsuits.
People talk about how they can't trust any studies done by "industry", but they're naive to think that litigation itself is not an industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049458</id>
	<title>Screw Microwaves</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1265465400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about tachyon emissions?  Can you imagine what might happen if time such beams from different times were to converge on a single point in space?  All life on Earth could be destroyed before it even exists!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about tachyon emissions ?
Can you imagine what might happen if time such beams from different times were to converge on a single point in space ?
All life on Earth could be destroyed before it even exists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about tachyon emissions?
Can you imagine what might happen if time such beams from different times were to converge on a single point in space?
All life on Earth could be destroyed before it even exists!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051770</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265548440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>RF radiation, at the extremely low levels of energy that wifi and cell signals use, is harmless to humans, always has been, and always will be.</p></div></blockquote><p>Normally the "extremely low levels of" some food-additives (color, smell) "is harmless to humans".   But than again, some people are <i>very</i> sensitive to them, even leading to death upon encountering them.</p><p>And yes, I'm aware that that is a persons own defence-system going into overdrive, but <i>something</i> triggers the avalange, doesn't it ?</p><p>Its allways funny to read that, at this time-and-age where we (still) have little knowledge about how the brain actually works, we allready know that an high-frequency electric field emitted by some devices <i>cannot</i> cause any kind of changes in any brain.</p><p>Captcha : "sponsors".  That which decides the outcome of some "scientific" studies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RF radiation , at the extremely low levels of energy that wifi and cell signals use , is harmless to humans , always has been , and always will be.Normally the " extremely low levels of " some food-additives ( color , smell ) " is harmless to humans " .
But than again , some people are very sensitive to them , even leading to death upon encountering them.And yes , I 'm aware that that is a persons own defence-system going into overdrive , but something triggers the avalange , does n't it ? Its allways funny to read that , at this time-and-age where we ( still ) have little knowledge about how the brain actually works , we allready know that an high-frequency electric field emitted by some devices can not cause any kind of changes in any brain.Captcha : " sponsors " .
That which decides the outcome of some " scientific " studies .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RF radiation, at the extremely low levels of energy that wifi and cell signals use, is harmless to humans, always has been, and always will be.Normally the "extremely low levels of" some food-additives (color, smell) "is harmless to humans".
But than again, some people are very sensitive to them, even leading to death upon encountering them.And yes, I'm aware that that is a persons own defence-system going into overdrive, but something triggers the avalange, doesn't it ?Its allways funny to read that, at this time-and-age where we (still) have little knowledge about how the brain actually works, we allready know that an high-frequency electric field emitted by some devices cannot cause any kind of changes in any brain.Captcha : "sponsors".
That which decides the outcome of some "scientific" studies ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050458</id>
	<title>Re:GQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when writing IPCC reports I always consult the WWF.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when writing IPCC reports I always consult the WWF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when writing IPCC reports I always consult the WWF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049878</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1265471640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
<br>
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand."</i>
<br> <br>
So what, I see little difference between greenpeace, the heartland institue and the discovery institute, I do not dissmisses then "out of hand" I dismiss them because they are all anti-science. They are all capable of getting the facts straight when the science is on their side.
<br> <br>
Slashdot has a high proportion of knowledgeable people who can think beyond the identity of the messenger. They at least try and base their opinions on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARLS's). I don't expect anyone who sees the above quote as a contradiction will understand why that approach is profoundly superiour to all others.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The / .
demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand .
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand .
" So what , I see little difference between greenpeace , the heartland institue and the discovery institute , I do not dissmisses then " out of hand " I dismiss them because they are all anti-science .
They are all capable of getting the facts straight when the science is on their side .
Slashdot has a high proportion of knowledgeable people who can think beyond the identity of the messenger .
They at least try and base their opinions on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic ( PEARLS 's ) .
I do n't expect anyone who sees the above quote as a contradiction will understand why that approach is profoundly superiour to all others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The /.
demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.
"
 
So what, I see little difference between greenpeace, the heartland institue and the discovery institute, I do not dissmisses then "out of hand" I dismiss them because they are all anti-science.
They are all capable of getting the facts straight when the science is on their side.
Slashdot has a high proportion of knowledgeable people who can think beyond the identity of the messenger.
They at least try and base their opinions on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARLS's).
I don't expect anyone who sees the above quote as a contradiction will understand why that approach is profoundly superiour to all others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050280</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265476620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.&gt;</p> </div><p>This claim doesn't take into account the penetration capability of radiation. The lower frequency penetrates better. To test this, use your flash light against a door. Wi-Fi on the other hand goes thru easily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 watts of much stronger photons ( sunbathers , cowboys ) , they do just fine. &gt; This claim does n't take into account the penetration capability of radiation .
The lower frequency penetrates better .
To test this , use your flash light against a door .
Wi-Fi on the other hand goes thru easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.&gt; This claim doesn't take into account the penetration capability of radiation.
The lower frequency penetrates better.
To test this, use your flash light against a door.
Wi-Fi on the other hand goes thru easily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049764</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265469840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have, such as that held by respected scientist, to advance their political beliefs</p></div><p>You do realize, I hope, that that's not even remotely a post-modernist belief, right?  That's been around since time immemorial and you can find examples of people on all sides of the politic spectrum using their powers to get their ways.  Priests rail and rant for their party.  (Some even threaten to withhold communion for voting the wrong way.)  The Republican "permanent majority" plan called for taking the Secretary of State posts in states to control the elections.  (See: Katherine Harris.)  If you've never noticed, MSNBC and FOX news both use their positions to push their sides of the political debate.  The list goes on, and I can think of no examples where I'd even think of calling it "post modernist"* or that it's endemic to one side or the other.</p><p>You ruined an otherwise intelligent post with a political screed of your own.  Ironic, considering.</p><p>* Unless, of course, one were trying to sling political mud around.  Nothing like labeling an idea as "post modernist" or "neo-conservative" to make it sound scary and like a left/right-wing problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have , such as that held by respected scientist , to advance their political beliefsYou do realize , I hope , that that 's not even remotely a post-modernist belief , right ?
That 's been around since time immemorial and you can find examples of people on all sides of the politic spectrum using their powers to get their ways .
Priests rail and rant for their party .
( Some even threaten to withhold communion for voting the wrong way .
) The Republican " permanent majority " plan called for taking the Secretary of State posts in states to control the elections .
( See : Katherine Harris .
) If you 've never noticed , MSNBC and FOX news both use their positions to push their sides of the political debate .
The list goes on , and I can think of no examples where I 'd even think of calling it " post modernist " * or that it 's endemic to one side or the other.You ruined an otherwise intelligent post with a political screed of your own .
Ironic , considering .
* Unless , of course , one were trying to sling political mud around .
Nothing like labeling an idea as " post modernist " or " neo-conservative " to make it sound scary and like a left/right-wing problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have, such as that held by respected scientist, to advance their political beliefsYou do realize, I hope, that that's not even remotely a post-modernist belief, right?
That's been around since time immemorial and you can find examples of people on all sides of the politic spectrum using their powers to get their ways.
Priests rail and rant for their party.
(Some even threaten to withhold communion for voting the wrong way.
)  The Republican "permanent majority" plan called for taking the Secretary of State posts in states to control the elections.
(See: Katherine Harris.
)  If you've never noticed, MSNBC and FOX news both use their positions to push their sides of the political debate.
The list goes on, and I can think of no examples where I'd even think of calling it "post modernist"* or that it's endemic to one side or the other.You ruined an otherwise intelligent post with a political screed of your own.
Ironic, considering.
* Unless, of course, one were trying to sling political mud around.
Nothing like labeling an idea as "post modernist" or "neo-conservative" to make it sound scary and like a left/right-wing problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31056694</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>the gnat</author>
	<datestamp>1265552280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>a large number of these "meta" studies are actually done by sociologist and other "soft" scientist</i></p><p>By the way, I think you'll find that most academics in the hard sciences - including the left-wing ones - don't care for sociologists any more than you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a large number of these " meta " studies are actually done by sociologist and other " soft " scientistBy the way , I think you 'll find that most academics in the hard sciences - including the left-wing ones - do n't care for sociologists any more than you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a large number of these "meta" studies are actually done by sociologist and other "soft" scientistBy the way, I think you'll find that most academics in the hard sciences - including the left-wing ones - don't care for sociologists any more than you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116</id>
	<title>Re:It's Crap and Here's Why</title>
	<author>the gnat</author>
	<datestamp>1265462160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Academic today tilt strongly to the left side of the political spectrum and many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have, such as that held by respected scientist, to advance their political beliefs. They are inherently hostile to the economically productive.</i></p><p>Maybe this is true of professors in the Sociology or Gender Studies departments, but in my experience (10 years in academic biology labs) this is rarely applicable to scientists - especially the last sentence.  It is fair to say that the vast majority hold center-left political views, but this usually doesn't mean outright hostility to capitalism, and it rarely translates to attempts to skew the science one way or the other.  Furthermore, very few scientists are reluctant to refuse funding from industry sources, as long as it does not come with strings attached.  UC Berkeley has accepted money from both Novartis and BP for various types of life-science research (the latter for biofuels, obviously), and I can guarantee you that at least 90\% of the faculty in the life sciences (well, the faculty who are American citizens, anyway) voted for Obama.  I have yet to see any left-wing pressure groups making similar donations.</p><p>That said, plenty of scientists are also raging assholes, and I'm amazed at how easily experienced researchers can delude themselves into believing crappy data.  They're just as fallible as anyone else.  However, peer review tends to weed out the bullshit in the long term, and part of the basic training of most graduate students is learning how to rip apart journal articles and search for flaws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Academic today tilt strongly to the left side of the political spectrum and many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have , such as that held by respected scientist , to advance their political beliefs .
They are inherently hostile to the economically productive.Maybe this is true of professors in the Sociology or Gender Studies departments , but in my experience ( 10 years in academic biology labs ) this is rarely applicable to scientists - especially the last sentence .
It is fair to say that the vast majority hold center-left political views , but this usually does n't mean outright hostility to capitalism , and it rarely translates to attempts to skew the science one way or the other .
Furthermore , very few scientists are reluctant to refuse funding from industry sources , as long as it does not come with strings attached .
UC Berkeley has accepted money from both Novartis and BP for various types of life-science research ( the latter for biofuels , obviously ) , and I can guarantee you that at least 90 \ % of the faculty in the life sciences ( well , the faculty who are American citizens , anyway ) voted for Obama .
I have yet to see any left-wing pressure groups making similar donations.That said , plenty of scientists are also raging assholes , and I 'm amazed at how easily experienced researchers can delude themselves into believing crappy data .
They 're just as fallible as anyone else .
However , peer review tends to weed out the bullshit in the long term , and part of the basic training of most graduate students is learning how to rip apart journal articles and search for flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Academic today tilt strongly to the left side of the political spectrum and many believe in the post modernist concept that every one has a moral obligation to use whatever power they have, such as that held by respected scientist, to advance their political beliefs.
They are inherently hostile to the economically productive.Maybe this is true of professors in the Sociology or Gender Studies departments, but in my experience (10 years in academic biology labs) this is rarely applicable to scientists - especially the last sentence.
It is fair to say that the vast majority hold center-left political views, but this usually doesn't mean outright hostility to capitalism, and it rarely translates to attempts to skew the science one way or the other.
Furthermore, very few scientists are reluctant to refuse funding from industry sources, as long as it does not come with strings attached.
UC Berkeley has accepted money from both Novartis and BP for various types of life-science research (the latter for biofuels, obviously), and I can guarantee you that at least 90\% of the faculty in the life sciences (well, the faculty who are American citizens, anyway) voted for Obama.
I have yet to see any left-wing pressure groups making similar donations.That said, plenty of scientists are also raging assholes, and I'm amazed at how easily experienced researchers can delude themselves into believing crappy data.
They're just as fallible as anyone else.
However, peer review tends to weed out the bullshit in the long term, and part of the basic training of most graduate students is learning how to rip apart journal articles and search for flaws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049476</id>
	<title>Re:Insulation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265465760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, huh. If only there were some kind of large organization where every member of the population gave them money, and then they gave out that money to fund projects that would benefit everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , huh .
If only there were some kind of large organization where every member of the population gave them money , and then they gave out that money to fund projects that would benefit everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, huh.
If only there were some kind of large organization where every member of the population gave them money, and then they gave out that money to fund projects that would benefit everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049166</id>
	<title>Re:GQ?</title>
	<author>absurdist</author>
	<datestamp>1265462580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A squid-eating doe in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous.  Got me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A squid-eating doe in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous .
Got me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A squid-eating doe in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous.
Got me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052098</id>
	<title>On vaccines, autism, and vitamin D deficiency</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1265554620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Widespread vitamin D deficiency may be causing autism, both directly through damage and indirectly in impairing the bodies ability to deal with heavy metals and other toxins in vaccines as well as the environment. See:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "New Harvard Paper on Autism"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/new-harvard-paper-on-autism.shtml" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/new-harvard-paper-on-autism.shtml</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]<br>And:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Vitamin D and the Brain"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-and-brain.shtml" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-and-brain.shtml</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]<br>"""<br>Vitamin D's role in increasing glutathione levels may explain the link between mercury and other heavy metals, oxidative stress, and autism. For example, activated vitamin D lessens heavy metal induced oxidative injuries in rat brain. The primary route for brain toxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione. Besides its function as a master antioxidant, glutathione acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals such as mercury. Autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals like mercury. If brain levels of activated vitamin D are too low to employ glutathione properly, and thus unable to remove heavy metals, they may be damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete. That is, the mercury in Thiomerosol vaccines may have injured vitamin D deficient children while normal children would have easily bound the mercury and excreted it. These studies offer further hope that sun-exposure or vitamin D supplements may help autistic children by increasing glutathione and removing heavy metals. Not only do we have more clues that vitamin D is involved in autism, the vitamin D theory just did something else: it explained two other theories of autism, the mercury accumulation theory and the oxidative stress theory.  [Lin AM, Chen KB, Chao PL. Antioxidative effect of vitamin D3 on zinc-induced oxidative stress in CNS. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Aug;1053:319&ndash;29.  Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MT. Metals, toxicity and oxidative stress. Curr Med Chem. 2005;12(10):1161&ndash;208.]<br>"""</p><p>Also related:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]</p><p>But that is not to disagree with your main point.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Even as now that drumbeat is that because one doctor who did one study was publicly discredited, that somehow proves all vaccines are "safe and effective" in all ways. But it is easy to get behind the curve on some issue, especially when there is big money involved. Vitamin D supplements could help save literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global health care costs (between preventing some of cancer, mental illness, heart disease, autism, and so on). Sunshine is free, and supplements are cheap. But then who loses out?</p><p>By the way, if you spend a lot of time indoors at computers, see this:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]</p><p>Could correlations with cellphone use or WiFi be better explained by correlations with being indoors a lot (or in the car a lot) and so becoming vitamin D deficient?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Widespread vitamin D deficiency may be causing autism , both directly through damage and indirectly in impairing the bodies ability to deal with heavy metals and other toxins in vaccines as well as the environment .
See :     " New Harvard Paper on Autism "     http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/new-harvard-paper-on-autism.shtml [ vitamindcouncil.org ] And :     " Vitamin D and the Brain "     http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-and-brain.shtml [ vitamindcouncil.org ] " " " Vitamin D 's role in increasing glutathione levels may explain the link between mercury and other heavy metals , oxidative stress , and autism .
For example , activated vitamin D lessens heavy metal induced oxidative injuries in rat brain .
The primary route for brain toxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione .
Besides its function as a master antioxidant , glutathione acts as a chelating ( binding ) agent to remove heavy metals such as mercury .
Autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals like mercury .
If brain levels of activated vitamin D are too low to employ glutathione properly , and thus unable to remove heavy metals , they may be damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete .
That is , the mercury in Thiomerosol vaccines may have injured vitamin D deficient children while normal children would have easily bound the mercury and excreted it .
These studies offer further hope that sun-exposure or vitamin D supplements may help autistic children by increasing glutathione and removing heavy metals .
Not only do we have more clues that vitamin D is involved in autism , the vitamin D theory just did something else : it explained two other theories of autism , the mercury accumulation theory and the oxidative stress theory .
[ Lin AM , Chen KB , Chao PL .
Antioxidative effect of vitamin D3 on zinc-induced oxidative stress in CNS .
Ann N Y Acad Sci .
2005 Aug ; 1053 : 319    29 .
Valko M , Morris H , Cronin MT .
Metals , toxicity and oxidative stress .
Curr Med Chem .
2005 ; 12 ( 10 ) : 1161    208. ] " " " Also related :     http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml [ vitamindcouncil.org ] But that is not to disagree with your main point .
: - ) Even as now that drumbeat is that because one doctor who did one study was publicly discredited , that somehow proves all vaccines are " safe and effective " in all ways .
But it is easy to get behind the curve on some issue , especially when there is big money involved .
Vitamin D supplements could help save literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global health care costs ( between preventing some of cancer , mental illness , heart disease , autism , and so on ) .
Sunshine is free , and supplements are cheap .
But then who loses out ? By the way , if you spend a lot of time indoors at computers , see this :     http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml [ vitamindcouncil.org ] Could correlations with cellphone use or WiFi be better explained by correlations with being indoors a lot ( or in the car a lot ) and so becoming vitamin D deficient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Widespread vitamin D deficiency may be causing autism, both directly through damage and indirectly in impairing the bodies ability to deal with heavy metals and other toxins in vaccines as well as the environment.
See:
    "New Harvard Paper on Autism"
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/new-harvard-paper-on-autism.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]And:
    "Vitamin D and the Brain"
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-and-brain.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]"""Vitamin D's role in increasing glutathione levels may explain the link between mercury and other heavy metals, oxidative stress, and autism.
For example, activated vitamin D lessens heavy metal induced oxidative injuries in rat brain.
The primary route for brain toxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione.
Besides its function as a master antioxidant, glutathione acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals such as mercury.
Autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals like mercury.
If brain levels of activated vitamin D are too low to employ glutathione properly, and thus unable to remove heavy metals, they may be damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete.
That is, the mercury in Thiomerosol vaccines may have injured vitamin D deficient children while normal children would have easily bound the mercury and excreted it.
These studies offer further hope that sun-exposure or vitamin D supplements may help autistic children by increasing glutathione and removing heavy metals.
Not only do we have more clues that vitamin D is involved in autism, the vitamin D theory just did something else: it explained two other theories of autism, the mercury accumulation theory and the oxidative stress theory.
[Lin AM, Chen KB, Chao PL.
Antioxidative effect of vitamin D3 on zinc-induced oxidative stress in CNS.
Ann N Y Acad Sci.
2005 Aug;1053:319–29.
Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MT.
Metals, toxicity and oxidative stress.
Curr Med Chem.
2005;12(10):1161–208.]"""Also related:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]But that is not to disagree with your main point.
:-) Even as now that drumbeat is that because one doctor who did one study was publicly discredited, that somehow proves all vaccines are "safe and effective" in all ways.
But it is easy to get behind the curve on some issue, especially when there is big money involved.
Vitamin D supplements could help save literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global health care costs (between preventing some of cancer, mental illness, heart disease, autism, and so on).
Sunshine is free, and supplements are cheap.
But then who loses out?By the way, if you spend a lot of time indoors at computers, see this:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]Could correlations with cellphone use or WiFi be better explained by correlations with being indoors a lot (or in the car a lot) and so becoming vitamin D deficient?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049632</id>
	<title>So, Am I Really Safe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265467740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a tinfoil hat? Or is this legit and we must wait for the National Inquirer to break the story (like the John Edwards scandal)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a tinfoil hat ?
Or is this legit and we must wait for the National Inquirer to break the story ( like the John Edwards scandal ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a tinfoil hat?
Or is this legit and we must wait for the National Inquirer to break the story (like the John Edwards scandal)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049134</id>
	<title>Numbers</title>
	<author>jklovanc</author>
	<datestamp>1265462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The numbers in this article seem to be fishy as well. If you have a 25\% sample and a 75\% sample you would have to add an equal amount of both to get a 50\% sample. That means that in the sample there were 50\% industry funded. It also means that the industry sample found changes in exactly 1/3 as many cases as the non industry sample. The numbers are too perfect 25\%, 50\% 75\%.</p><p>It looks to me that the scientist decided what the outcome would be and selected studies to fulfil that outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The numbers in this article seem to be fishy as well .
If you have a 25 \ % sample and a 75 \ % sample you would have to add an equal amount of both to get a 50 \ % sample .
That means that in the sample there were 50 \ % industry funded .
It also means that the industry sample found changes in exactly 1/3 as many cases as the non industry sample .
The numbers are too perfect 25 \ % , 50 \ % 75 \ % .It looks to me that the scientist decided what the outcome would be and selected studies to fulfil that outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The numbers in this article seem to be fishy as well.
If you have a 25\% sample and a 75\% sample you would have to add an equal amount of both to get a 50\% sample.
That means that in the sample there were 50\% industry funded.
It also means that the industry sample found changes in exactly 1/3 as many cases as the non industry sample.
The numbers are too perfect 25\%, 50\% 75\%.It looks to me that the scientist decided what the outcome would be and selected studies to fulfil that outcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048952</id>
	<title>Environmentalism is a religion</title>
	<author>oldsaint</author>
	<datestamp>1265460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Studies" that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogma, essentially worthless to those who endeavor to understand the underlying issue.  Environmental organizations, like religious organizations, perceive themselves as above criticism, and therefore not accountable for the veracity of their proclamations.  Commercial organizations might be equally and oppositely dogmatic in their desire for lucre, but tend to have a higher regard for logic, even if they reject it when they can get away with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Studies " that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogma , essentially worthless to those who endeavor to understand the underlying issue .
Environmental organizations , like religious organizations , perceive themselves as above criticism , and therefore not accountable for the veracity of their proclamations .
Commercial organizations might be equally and oppositely dogmatic in their desire for lucre , but tend to have a higher regard for logic , even if they reject it when they can get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Studies" that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogma, essentially worthless to those who endeavor to understand the underlying issue.
Environmental organizations, like religious organizations, perceive themselves as above criticism, and therefore not accountable for the veracity of their proclamations.
Commercial organizations might be equally and oppositely dogmatic in their desire for lucre, but tend to have a higher regard for logic, even if they reject it when they can get away with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051500</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1265543760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It matters not one whit how many studies show result X.</p></div></blockquote><p>I disagree. It might not matter as to result X, but if you're interested in assessing the quality of the research being done *in general*, then it's vital, especially if (like here, and in a whole bunch of pharma cases) you've got a correlation with a vested interest. Peer review does miss things (well-faked data, for instance), so while it's important, what is more important is not just repeatability, but studies *actually being repeated*.</p><blockquote><div><p>radar disk repairers</p></div></blockquote><p>There was an interesting study done (which typically I can't find right now) into microwave techs, which basically found that they only ever have daughters. Ok, so it's not exactly "suppurating pustules", but it's interesting nonetheless.</p><blockquote><div><p>Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.</p></div></blockquote><p>Skin cancer is really, really nasty. You should have picked a better example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters not one whit how many studies show result X.I disagree .
It might not matter as to result X , but if you 're interested in assessing the quality of the research being done * in general * , then it 's vital , especially if ( like here , and in a whole bunch of pharma cases ) you 've got a correlation with a vested interest .
Peer review does miss things ( well-faked data , for instance ) , so while it 's important , what is more important is not just repeatability , but studies * actually being repeated * .radar disk repairersThere was an interesting study done ( which typically I ca n't find right now ) into microwave techs , which basically found that they only ever have daughters .
Ok , so it 's not exactly " suppurating pustules " , but it 's interesting nonetheless.Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons ( sunbathers , cowboys ) , they do just fine.Skin cancer is really , really nasty .
You should have picked a better example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters not one whit how many studies show result X.I disagree.
It might not matter as to result X, but if you're interested in assessing the quality of the research being done *in general*, then it's vital, especially if (like here, and in a whole bunch of pharma cases) you've got a correlation with a vested interest.
Peer review does miss things (well-faked data, for instance), so while it's important, what is more important is not just repeatability, but studies *actually being repeated*.radar disk repairersThere was an interesting study done (which typically I can't find right now) into microwave techs, which basically found that they only ever have daughters.
Ok, so it's not exactly "suppurating pustules", but it's interesting nonetheless.Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.Skin cancer is really, really nasty.
You should have picked a better example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052600</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism is a religion</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1265560620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Studies" that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogma</p></div><p>They should be tax-exempt?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Studies " that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogmaThey should be tax-exempt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Studies" that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogmaThey should be tax-exempt?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048748</id>
	<title>Just use bluetooth</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1265458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and keep your cellphone away from your balls. Let everyone else find out if it causes brain cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and keep your cellphone away from your balls .
Let everyone else find out if it causes brain cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and keep your cellphone away from your balls.
Let everyone else find out if it causes brain cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051140</id>
	<title>Being an Israeli myself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265536560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can say that the public consensus is that RF radiation is not likely but surely to be harmful. I would therefore trust no study conducted by Israelis, even if they're well known scientists from universities as the conclusion is likely to have been predetermined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say that the public consensus is that RF radiation is not likely but surely to be harmful .
I would therefore trust no study conducted by Israelis , even if they 're well known scientists from universities as the conclusion is likely to have been predetermined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say that the public consensus is that RF radiation is not likely but surely to be harmful.
I would therefore trust no study conducted by Israelis, even if they're well known scientists from universities as the conclusion is likely to have been predetermined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049002</id>
	<title>GQ</title>
	<author>exabrial</author>
	<datestamp>1265461380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this a new scientific journal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a new scientific journal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a new scientific journal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050646</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation bias.</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1265481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.</p><p>This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.</p></div><p>That, in fact, is not what is happening here.  When there is a consistent bias in studies based on funding source, that is a very interesting result.  One group or the other is fudging their results.</p><p>Global warming is the kind of cause that would end up with scientists fudging their results for a variety of reasons, financial, because they feel they have a moral obligation to do so in order to protect humanity from itself, and the respect of peers.</p><p>I don't notice a strong degree of partisanship in the question of RF radiation.  It doesn't seem to me like finding evidence of it is really a political agenda item for anybody in particular except crank fringe groups who have no money or respect.  So when I see a bias like this, my tendency is to suspect the people who have a clear financial motive.</p><p>For the record, I don't have a strong degree of trust in the results of either side of the global warming debate.  The only thing I trust is the fact that our icecaps ARE melting and there is a well documented historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature.  And while correlation is not causation, in this particular case I don't really want to mess around with the consequences of being wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The / .
demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.That , in fact , is not what is happening here .
When there is a consistent bias in studies based on funding source , that is a very interesting result .
One group or the other is fudging their results.Global warming is the kind of cause that would end up with scientists fudging their results for a variety of reasons , financial , because they feel they have a moral obligation to do so in order to protect humanity from itself , and the respect of peers.I do n't notice a strong degree of partisanship in the question of RF radiation .
It does n't seem to me like finding evidence of it is really a political agenda item for anybody in particular except crank fringe groups who have no money or respect .
So when I see a bias like this , my tendency is to suspect the people who have a clear financial motive.For the record , I do n't have a strong degree of trust in the results of either side of the global warming debate .
The only thing I trust is the fact that our icecaps ARE melting and there is a well documented historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature .
And while correlation is not causation , in this particular case I do n't really want to mess around with the consequences of being wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The /.
demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.That, in fact, is not what is happening here.
When there is a consistent bias in studies based on funding source, that is a very interesting result.
One group or the other is fudging their results.Global warming is the kind of cause that would end up with scientists fudging their results for a variety of reasons, financial, because they feel they have a moral obligation to do so in order to protect humanity from itself, and the respect of peers.I don't notice a strong degree of partisanship in the question of RF radiation.
It doesn't seem to me like finding evidence of it is really a political agenda item for anybody in particular except crank fringe groups who have no money or respect.
So when I see a bias like this, my tendency is to suspect the people who have a clear financial motive.For the record, I don't have a strong degree of trust in the results of either side of the global warming debate.
The only thing I trust is the fact that our icecaps ARE melting and there is a well documented historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature.
And while correlation is not causation, in this particular case I don't really want to mess around with the consequences of being wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049402</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265464860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they run those welders on cell phone batteries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they run those welders on cell phone batteries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they run those welders on cell phone batteries?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050298</id>
	<title>Your brain is irradiating itself as you speak.</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1265476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe it or not, your brain is immersed in a bath of photons with equal and <i>higher</i> energies to the ones in cellphone radiation. They come from the blackbody radiation that everything with a temperature emits. Equivalently, any oscillatory mode with energy comparable to kT among the atoms in your brain is already getting randomly banged around by thermal fluctuations.</p><p>Your brain's awash in radiation all the time, with a higher energy per photon than what you get from a cell phone, and with much more of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , your brain is immersed in a bath of photons with equal and higher energies to the ones in cellphone radiation .
They come from the blackbody radiation that everything with a temperature emits .
Equivalently , any oscillatory mode with energy comparable to kT among the atoms in your brain is already getting randomly banged around by thermal fluctuations.Your brain 's awash in radiation all the time , with a higher energy per photon than what you get from a cell phone , and with much more of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, your brain is immersed in a bath of photons with equal and higher energies to the ones in cellphone radiation.
They come from the blackbody radiation that everything with a temperature emits.
Equivalently, any oscillatory mode with energy comparable to kT among the atoms in your brain is already getting randomly banged around by thermal fluctuations.Your brain's awash in radiation all the time, with a higher energy per photon than what you get from a cell phone, and with much more of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820</id>
	<title>Re:Matters not</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1265459760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People around RF welders have serious shielding, and most plastics welding is automated.  There have been 'accidents' such as seared skin, blindness, and neurological disorders among those who worked around these welders.  Of course, we haven't heard much about them.  Then again, we had not heard about brain injuries to football players for over 100 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People around RF welders have serious shielding , and most plastics welding is automated .
There have been 'accidents ' such as seared skin , blindness , and neurological disorders among those who worked around these welders .
Of course , we have n't heard much about them .
Then again , we had not heard about brain injuries to football players for over 100 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People around RF welders have serious shielding, and most plastics welding is automated.
There have been 'accidents' such as seared skin, blindness, and neurological disorders among those who worked around these welders.
Of course, we haven't heard much about them.
Then again, we had not heard about brain injuries to football players for over 100 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049488</id>
	<title>meta-analysis of random studies!</title>
	<author>sillivalley</author>
	<datestamp>1265465880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>(1) it's a meta-analysis, looking at other studies, not a study actually looking at links between RF exposure and disease.<br> <br>
(2) it's a meta-analysis of a veritable zoo of studies.  About the only things the subject studies have in common is that <i>most</i> of them involve humans and most involve RF!  This is <b>not</b> a valid application of these statistical techniques!<br> <br>
(3) the so-called conclusions of the meta-analysis look at opinions on factors in the subject studies which were not controlled let alone investigated and measured according to a set of standards -- opinions on funding.<br> <br>
And somehow I don't think this paper was subject to peer review, although I'm not familiar with their review process...</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) it 's a meta-analysis , looking at other studies , not a study actually looking at links between RF exposure and disease .
( 2 ) it 's a meta-analysis of a veritable zoo of studies .
About the only things the subject studies have in common is that most of them involve humans and most involve RF !
This is not a valid application of these statistical techniques !
( 3 ) the so-called conclusions of the meta-analysis look at opinions on factors in the subject studies which were not controlled let alone investigated and measured according to a set of standards -- opinions on funding .
And somehow I do n't think this paper was subject to peer review , although I 'm not familiar with their review process.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) it's a meta-analysis, looking at other studies, not a study actually looking at links between RF exposure and disease.
(2) it's a meta-analysis of a veritable zoo of studies.
About the only things the subject studies have in common is that most of them involve humans and most involve RF!
This is not a valid application of these statistical techniques!
(3) the so-called conclusions of the meta-analysis look at opinions on factors in the subject studies which were not controlled let alone investigated and measured according to a set of standards -- opinions on funding.
And somehow I don't think this paper was subject to peer review, although I'm not familiar with their review process...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050044</id>
	<title>Article fundamentally incorrect.</title>
	<author>Sitnalta</author>
	<datestamp>1265473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cellphones and routers do not emit microwave radiation. They broadcast in UHF.</p><p>Even if they did, life on earth has been dealing with microwave radiation for billions of years. It occurs naturally just like actually harmful ionizing radiation,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cellphones and routers do not emit microwave radiation .
They broadcast in UHF.Even if they did , life on earth has been dealing with microwave radiation for billions of years .
It occurs naturally just like actually harmful ionizing radiation,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cellphones and routers do not emit microwave radiation.
They broadcast in UHF.Even if they did, life on earth has been dealing with microwave radiation for billions of years.
It occurs naturally just like actually harmful ionizing radiation,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050388</id>
	<title>Re:IF this is right, what could I use instead of W</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1265478060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of cat5 cable? Its more secure than wifi too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of cat5 cable ?
Its more secure than wifi too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of cat5 cable?
Its more secure than wifi too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048698</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the signals are all around you fool!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the signals are all around you fool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the signals are all around you fool!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048974</id>
	<title>Watch the WiFi protesters have a field day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265461140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly sure we'll get this study used a lot in the near future.</p><p>Like my neighbor, who recently nearly beat my door down to inform me that if I don't turn off my WiFi AP she'll call the police because she gets headaches from my radiation. Then the cellphone in her pocket rang...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure we 'll get this study used a lot in the near future.Like my neighbor , who recently nearly beat my door down to inform me that if I do n't turn off my WiFi AP she 'll call the police because she gets headaches from my radiation .
Then the cellphone in her pocket rang.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure we'll get this study used a lot in the near future.Like my neighbor, who recently nearly beat my door down to inform me that if I don't turn off my WiFi AP she'll call the police because she gets headaches from my radiation.
Then the cellphone in her pocket rang...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048810</id>
	<title>Re:WooHoo! I'm safe!</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265459580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need to get out of the basement and play <a href="http://chickencrap.com/images/980.jpg" title="chickencrap.com">Outside MMORPG</a> [chickencrap.com]. Watch out for the microwave and cellular towers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to get out of the basement and play Outside MMORPG [ chickencrap.com ] .
Watch out for the microwave and cellular towers .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to get out of the basement and play Outside MMORPG [chickencrap.com].
Watch out for the microwave and cellular towers.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31066120</id>
	<title>signals</title>
	<author>suzieque</author>
	<datestamp>1265627940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it depends how much and how you use the phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it depends how much and how you use the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it depends how much and how you use the phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049726</id>
	<title>Background radiation</title>
	<author>jonfr</author>
	<datestamp>1265469240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get more background radiation then radiation from a mobile phone that normally runs on 0,5W and up to a 1W in a city. In rural area and places far from the transmitter normal GSM phone runs on 2W at 850/900Mhz, but they only run at 1W at 1800/1900Mhz. The same goes for 3G connections.</p><p>Going on a air plane is more dangerous then using a mobile phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get more background radiation then radiation from a mobile phone that normally runs on 0,5W and up to a 1W in a city .
In rural area and places far from the transmitter normal GSM phone runs on 2W at 850/900Mhz , but they only run at 1W at 1800/1900Mhz .
The same goes for 3G connections.Going on a air plane is more dangerous then using a mobile phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get more background radiation then radiation from a mobile phone that normally runs on 0,5W and up to a 1W in a city.
In rural area and places far from the transmitter normal GSM phone runs on 2W at 850/900Mhz, but they only run at 1W at 1800/1900Mhz.
The same goes for 3G connections.Going on a air plane is more dangerous then using a mobile phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049594</id>
	<title>But not all cel towers!</title>
	<author>rueger</author>
	<datestamp>1265467320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here on the North Shore of Vancouver there was <a href="http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=e88564da-c60b-49fd-a431-6a46133b7eb0" title="canada.com">much wailing</a> [canada.com] last year as a tall cellular antenna tower was approved.<blockquote><div><p>"I can choose not to carry (a cellphone), but if there's a huge antenna in my neighbourhood, I can't choose not to be within (its range)."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Of course of you drive down the <a href="http://maps.google.ca/maps?rlz=1C1CHMZ\_enCA321CA321&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;q=lonsdale+avenue+north+vancouver&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Lonsdale+Ave,+North+Vancouver,+BC&amp;gl=ca&amp;ei=MRpuS-TSPIL-tAPf-LyxDQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=geocode\_result&amp;ct=title&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAgQ8gEwAA" title="google.ca">main street</a> [google.ca] of North Vancouver and look near the top of every building with any height, you'll see <b>dozens</b> of cel antennas.<br> <br>

The question whether we should be cruel enough to point that out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here on the North Shore of Vancouver there was much wailing [ canada.com ] last year as a tall cellular antenna tower was approved .
" I can choose not to carry ( a cellphone ) , but if there 's a huge antenna in my neighbourhood , I ca n't choose not to be within ( its range ) .
" Of course of you drive down the main street [ google.ca ] of North Vancouver and look near the top of every building with any height , you 'll see dozens of cel antennas .
The question whether we should be cruel enough to point that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here on the North Shore of Vancouver there was much wailing [canada.com] last year as a tall cellular antenna tower was approved.
"I can choose not to carry (a cellphone), but if there's a huge antenna in my neighbourhood, I can't choose not to be within (its range).
"

Of course of you drive down the main street [google.ca] of North Vancouver and look near the top of every building with any height, you'll see dozens of cel antennas.
The question whether we should be cruel enough to point that out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31053638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31056604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31056694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31068874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_2238247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31053638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31052670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31055670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31056694
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31056604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31051770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31068874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31049090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31050450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_2238247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_2238247.31048728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
