Clive Palmer has DYKWIA moment BNE airport

[drewbles]

You know if he wins 10 seats then we'll probably have a hung parliament. Who do you think he would support to form government?

I'd rather not speculate TBH. After the last 'majority' government was formed with the assistance of the independents, I don't think I want to even contemplate the outcome

 

[Mak404matt]

If he wins one seat, ill eat my hat.

If he wins 10, i'll leave the country. The man seriously scares me.

About as likely as Assange picking up a senate seat, although that would throw a spanner in the works for AUS-USA relations

 

[JohnK]

The opinion is belittling the expert's knowledge, which is based on fact. ie in their opinion it's dangerous and therefore the expert is full of cough.

Not irrelevant, it's addressing the basis of the opinion. An opinion that is apparently much more valuable than actually studying the real effects.

Sorry cannot agree.

I am allowed to have an opinion and it may not necessarily agree with the "experts" opinion.

We do not know what the real effects of prolonged use of these machines is going to be. Yes you can guess but we won't know for years.

Just like the trial medication I am on right now. All the "experts" say it should be OK but we won't know for many years.

 

[medhead]

Sorry cannot agree.

I am allowed to have an opinion and it may not necessarily agree with the "experts" opinion.

We do not know what the real effects of prolonged use of these machines is going to be. Yes you can guess but we won't know for years.

Just like the trial medication I am on right now. All the "experts" say it should be OK but we won't know for many years.

Actually we do know what the effects are from RF radiation. Sure you're allowed to have an opinion. Just like Greenpeace is allowed to have an opinion about radiation safety. Having that opinion doesn't make Greenpeace right.

 

[Skyring]

Of course hypocrisy only applies to other people.

Not having a go at you, medhead, just making a general observation.

One that applies to me as well.

JohnK has a valid point here. Experts - in any field - often have contradictory views. Get two economists in the same room and you'll have three different opinions etc. etc.

It's hard to know who to believe.

"Global warming," they say as the wind blows and the snow falls and we find that global temperature hasn't moved for fifteen years.

It was once expert opinion that black folk weren't as clever as white people. Abe Lincoln had this opinion. And look what happened there!

If we look hard enough, there is something in every one of us that disagrees with expert opinion. Something that we in our heart know we are right and the experts wrong. It might be religious, it might be medical, it might be secret, it might be a conspiracy.

Look at all the books written by "experts" about how John Kennedy wasn't killed by a dismal loner with a twenty dollar* rifle on his lunch break.

Can we play the ball and not the man, please? If there must be insults, insult the theory, insult the logic, insult the sources. And back up your opinions.

"How can you believe that fried Mars bars will make you live longer? That theory is stupid rubbish! Here's the link to the FDA testing - they spent a million dollars researching this very thing."

*Actually, it wasn't twenty dollars. It was a bit less than that.

 

[anat0l]

Experts - in any field - often have contradictory views. Get two economists in the same room and you'll have three different opinions etc. etc.

But that's because their opinions are often backed up by sound science or whatever knowledge field they are qualified in. They have their own professionalism behind it, lest it be their shame (no point being a scientist if you do not give professional opinion backed up by sound science).

One thing I notice here is that people will continue to shoot down science only because it is inherently uncertain. Science always works on the premise that you cannot be certain that something holds, but you can only be certain that something does not hold. Ask a scientist whether something has no risk attached to it. Any scientist worth their salt will of course say that they cannot say that. The fact is there can be very, very little risk attached to it, but there is still risk. But most people say risk is risk, therefore it is unsound. Black and white. Quite unreasonable.

That is not to say that the technology may be harmful. Of course no one knows for sure - we haven't had 50 years of testing to back this up. Where do you draw the line? Wait 50 years to see if anyone has had cancer from this? Suppose we could do that. After all, that's how we started to become more aware of asbestos.

And, as you exemplify, it is possible for opinions to be wrong. At one time, people believed the world was flat.

And back up your opinions.

And quite frankly there's just not enough of that. A scientist worth their salt will always try to back up their opinions. And some here are trying their best.

For some reason, anyone who is non-science of mind is allowed to have an opinion without backing it up for any reason whatsoever. Even if it is based on personal, emotional or religion, not many are giving good back up to their opinions. (And just saying, "It's a personal thing," hardly qualifies as a sufficient back up. I mean, we're not expecting three pages of formulas, but....)

You are not qualified enough to tell me my opinion is wrong. Ever.

We are just as entitled as you are to an opinion, which includes an opinion that your opinion is wrong.

You always seem ready to reinforce fervently your right to opinion (that everyone seems to be attempting to rob from you) and yet wanting to deprive others of their right to an opinion.

 

[anat0l]

In any case, we've streamed off the original article quite a bit. There's already a big thread about this new technology.

So, if Clive Palmer can be a DYKWIA over this, are we entitled to the same? Of course, not all of us are comfortable being banned from BNE airport (or any airport for that matter).

If you think the technology is harmful enough, maybe it might behoove you to hit up Clive Palmer to start a campaign to have the technology put under a moratorium (perhaps, in contravention of the US travel requirements - woo hoo, one less thing to suck at the Liberty tit). Certainly, it will save you from having to kick up the same kind of fuss at the airport and we can all still travel.

In a sense, we've seen airport security heightened quite a bit - for those who have travelled for over 30-40 years now, probably immensely - and we seem to keep rolling with the punches as it's gone, and it's not as if this is the first time that any such "enhancements" is known to have a marked effect on people (health, personal). So why is it such a big thing that we aren't rolling now? (Not saying we should just roll over and accept it, but it's a break in pattern / cycle which is curious.)

I'm not saying the technology is harmful or not either way, because hell I don't know enough about it to say anything. Been through it a few times, I haven't died yet or been diagnosed for cancer - of course that is hardly a result or a test point!

But what would be the correct way that Clive Palmer - let alone anyone - should've handled it at the airport?

 

[Austman]

That is not to say that the technology may be harmful. Of course no one knows for sure - we haven't had 50 years of testing to back this up. Where do you draw the line? Wait 50 years to see if anyone has had cancer from this? Suppose we could do that. After all, that's how we started to become more aware of asbestos.

It's exposure to human generated radio frequency energy that is the subject here. And that has been happening to humans for over 100 years. The knowledge of what that exposure does seems to be well understood.

 

[drron]

Anat01 you inadvertently brought up a good example of Medhead's point.
In 1972 my first presentation on my own at a Medical Grand rounds was on Asbestos.I was a respiratory medicine registrar and we saw many cases of mesothelioma-a lot of them actually from Noumea.
It was suggested in the 1920's that asbestos fibres were linked to cancer.In the 1930s it was well accepted in the relevant medical specialities the link to mesothelioma,lung and gastric cancers as well as obviously asbestosis.
Again I was presenting this in 1972.It was still many years before the authorities did much.It was not until 1975 that the miners of Wittenoom had regular health evaluations-the mine had closed in 1966 because it was unprofitable.The mine commenced in 1937 and health problems were recognised in the 1940s.see here-
Wittenoom, Western Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So why did today's situation arise-because people did not believe the experts.
It is only this year that the asbestos industry in Canada was finally killed off-
Asbestos Free Future