Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

The Science thread

53K views 557 replies 37 participants last post by  FeXL 
#1 ·
From time to time I run across a science article which doesn't fit very well into existing threads and it seems a waste to start a new thread each time for a few posts.

As such, here's a new thread for the science articles you aren't able to categorize otherwise.

I'd also like to leave the false gods of AGW out of here, thankyouverymuch.
 
#2 ·
How "Super Sand" Could Provide Drinking Water To Millions Of People

Linky.

Sand is a cheap and easy to find water filter. It's also not a very good water filter. But a new development--coating sand in graphite--could make it possible for everyone in the world to have easy access to clean water.
 
#4 ·
It says 'as good as an activated carbon filter'. So caveat emptor. (Activated carbon does a lot of things, but it needs to be used in conjunction with other technologies depending upon the contamination present and distribution system being used.)

The issue with most filters isn't their filtering capacity - it's the regular replacement of the media required to remove the accumulation of contaminants. You get a nice accumulation of organics before the filter media, and that actually breeds contaminants. (Large water treatment plants will use a backwashing process. Fun to see, but wastes a lot of water.)

If you're using a Brita filter: replace it often.

But the graphite thing is interesting.
 
#5 ·
Non-mare silicic volcanism on the lunar farside

I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as lunar volcanism.

Unfortunately, it's just an abstract (with photos), but interesting anyway.

The topography includes a series of domes that range from less than 1 km to more than 6 km across, some with steeply sloping sides. We interpret these as volcanic domes formed from viscous lava. We also observe arcuate to irregular circular depressions, which we suggest result from collapse associated with volcanism.
 
This post has been deleted
#9 ·
I don't even know what you are referring to when you all say non-AGM (or is it AGW?) presumedly because I tend to avoid this area(?) ... but at this point there's more derailment posts than science posts. Either way it's a FAIL and I guess that's my cue to go elsewhere to find civilized discussions of non-mac related stuff yet again.

Apparently you didn't see the http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/96015-tens-thousands-dead-horn-africa.html thread. :lmao:
 
This post has been deleted
This post has been deleted
#15 ·
Since it seems no one here wants to discuss science, how about meta-science. Apart from the conservative apologists, who have already made it clear that it's perfectly okay for our government to muzzle it's scientists, and that keeping the public ignorant is just fine because taxpayers just pay for the research, they don't have the right to learn the findings, does anyone here think this is acceptable?
 
This post has been deleted
This post has been deleted
#27 ·
Further to the link above, this quote might explain why the media wasn't permitted to interview her:

"Unfortunately, I am not given permission to speak with anyone affiliated with the media until after I testify at the Cohen Commission.

"Please be aware, however, that past research on salmon leukemia, often termed plasmacytoid leukemia or marine anemia, had not actually identified a specific viral agent associated with this 'syndrome' (not considered a disease until a disease agent is discovered), hence it is very difficult to determine if the as yet unidentified virus associated with salmon leukemia [is] the same as that purported to associate with our genomic signature, but we are working on this. We have made some inroads, but I am sorry I cannot discuss these at the present time."
 
#29 ·
Going to try this again...

So, a while back a website designed to discover science fraud & protect whistleblowers was started. You may ask why, if papers pass the hallowed peer-review process, is a site like this needed?

An abstract from a paper published by the National Academy of Science gives a hint.

Abstract.

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
Bold mine.

Unfortunately, due to legal threats, the site has shut down.

Whistleblower Science Fraud Site is Shut Down

A Barrage Of Legal Threats Shuts Down Whistleblower Site, Science Fraud

Operated as a crowdsourced reference site much like Wikipedia, Science Fraud, in its six months of operation, documented egregiously suspicious research results published in over 300 peer reviewed publications. Many were subsequently retracted, including a paper by an author whose lawyer sent Science Fraud a cease and desist letter.

Given the tens of millions of dollars in misappropriated research funds that financed this small sample of what is surely a larger problem and the cascading pollution of the scientific literature whenever fraudulent publications get cited, it’s a shame that this tip-of-of-the-iceberg effort at cleansing the muck is being shut down rather than expanded.
Bold mine.

What a sad, sad state has "science" become.
 
#30 ·
Going to try this again...
You may ask why, if papers pass the hallowed peer-review process, is a site like this needed?

An abstract from a paper published by the National Academy of Science gives a hint.

Abstract.
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
not sure why you're trying to link the PubMed articles to the 'Science Fraud' site....since there's nothing to connect them to each other. AT ALL.

perhaps you're trying to make a case that the misconduct runs rampant through the PubMed articles, and therefore run rampant through all peer reviewed work?

Just to put some perspective on the PubMed articles that were retracted.....there was 2047. PubMed houses over 24 million records....so basically 1 in every 11,724 articles are retracted.....which is actually pretty damn good if we're being honest about these things.

----------

As for the 'science fraud' website...it'd be interesting to see what they had posted. But perhaps there was legitimate legal reasons for it to be taken down?

But we should also note that the site went beyond simply questioning the integrity of the images; it also accused scientists of wrongdoing and questioned the scientists‘ integrity. Put together with what Brookes acknowledges was offensive language, there are a lot of clear-minded attorneys who would disagree with his conclusion that there is “in no way grounds for a libel or defamation suit.”

Perhaps we’re just used to thinking as journalists whose publications are at risk if we wander too close to the libel line, and some Retraction Watch commenters — mostly anonymous — are happier with Science Fraud’s approach than with ours. Fair enough: As we’ve noted a number of times, Science Fraud’s analyses led to a number of corrections and retractions. But the end doesn’t justify the means, certainly not in court. And a number of commenters seem to agree.
Owner of Science Fraud site, suspended for legal threats, identifies himself, talks about next steps « Retraction Watch
 
#34 ·
It's interesting to see the all out assault on science or whistleblowers, particularly this conservative government to ensure no roadblocks for corps wishing to ram through making piles of money with little worry some pesky scientist will get in the way.

Certainly closing down the station that helped identify the ozone problems from CFCs is a real eye opener.
 
#35 ·
That you see that is HSSMCG™'s clarity at work. Science, facts and figures need to be bent to the will of those in charge who will advise the citizens exactly the information we need know.

The more the government can obscure, the clearer things come into focus for most of us.

For some of us not so much.
 
#38 ·
I think the mistake some are making here is assuming that since conclusions have been made and peer reviewed, that no one will dispute it. I'm not a scientist, merely an observer and this seems rather obvious to me.

What you posted makes perfect sense. The idea that the worlds scientific community is somehow all conspiring to not dispute one another's findings to cover up some sort if fraud is the stuff for he tinfoil hat fans.

To put it mildly.
 
#39 ·
The idea that the worlds scientific community is somehow all conspiring to not dispute one another's findings to cover up some sort if fraud is the stuff for he tinfoil hat fans.
Absolutely; and while the point of this thread is not to digress into science that FeXL finds offensive, anyone who has any experience with the culture of science will know that consensus is extremely rare among scientists because we *like* arguing and we're trained to find fault with each other's interpretations as much as possible. When consensus emerges, it's because there is no alternative; scientists are almost allergic to agreeing with each other, and will only do so if they have no choice.

So consensus emerges very rarely in science, and when it does, it's because the data is overwhelming.
 
#85 ·
Given the recent efforts by some's heros that they support to ensure the rights of a rapist over the woman's body, I don't know that being sarcastic about a woman's sovereignty is a laughing matter.

But this is a science thread, I don't want to feed into the thread derailment brigades. This topic could be continued in say the religious thread or similar.
 
#86 ·
But this is a science thread, I don't want to feed into the thread derailment brigades. This topic could be continued in say the religious thread or similar.
no, there they would have to grapple with the ethics of forcing a rape victim to carry to term against her will. or the ethics of forcing a woman to die because their ideology trumps her health when pregnancy goes awry. you know, complicated real world situations where black & white world views quickly crumble.

better to stay in the science thread where a theoretical situation that very few are actually endorsing and will probably never happen. this is the best place to debate the ethics of abortion.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top