virusrex comments

However, China has contended that the IAEA did not adequately represent the perspectives of the participating experts in their review and remains opposed to the planned water discharge.

What experts were not represented properly? what are the scientific arguments that are being supposedly ignored?

Once the scientific authority is recognized the only arguments that should matter are also scientific, without them the measures being taken are still baseless.

This seems a positive way to focus his hobby and that could help fighting against racism, but looking at some of the very negative comments in social media covering him it also seems like he has a lot to fight against.

When the first news about the wildfires in Canada appeared it was difficult to imagine worse things could have happened, this week it became clear that definitely much worse tragedies are possible. Ecological damage is by now impossible to prevent already, but at least a lot of lives are being saved by opportune actions of the government.

The cause of death could have been something that would not be realistically detected without specialized medical care, and without more details we can't know for sure this care was even warranted (being detained for violations of the stimulant drug act do not automatically means she was a user for example).

Still, under custody means the police became responsible for her well being, so a full investigation to eliminate any possible neglect of this responsibility is guaranteed. Unfortunately in Japan it takes a lot of optimism to expect this investigation to be done impartially.

Unfortunately poor regulation can make many of those offers dubious at best, and sometimes even based on well debunked concepts. A trend that comes from companies doing this kind of thing on beauty products from a long time ago now diversifying to health care, with all the risks that come from it.

I am still surprised by the open circular reasoning some people use to criticize the movie.

"This is a children's movie"

but you have not yet even seeing it, how can you say it is for children?

"I haven't because I don't see children's movies"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/

From your own reference

Curry’s saga began with a Science paper she co-authored in 2005, which linked an increase in powerful tropical cyclones to global warming

So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy.

This is not an expert expressing an opposing view as you said. In fact the reference supports completely the article you are commenting in.

AI do not have the capacity to take blood pressure measurements, give tests or diagnose by itself, it can help professionals do these tasks but they are still necessary to complete all those actions.

And then there are scientists with opposing views.

I could not find any reference where a scientist expressed an opposing view, at all.

X-ray causes cancer. The solution is the cause sometimes.

Generally speaking the risk of cancer by a mammography is terribly low (as one case per tens of thousands of times of exposure) in this case the much more significative risk is because unnecessary treatments (surgery chemo radio). Still, both kind of risks can be reduced with a proper algorithm that can let professionals choose the best schedule to maximize benefits and minimize the risks.

And making money out of something routinely making you more money too

As long as the person is getting the best possible medical treatment (including preventive one) according to scientific evidence this is not something that should impact negatively the decision of how frequently they should get tested. Getting a more advance cancer to minimize the profit someone may be making from the tests is a losing proposition.

Minimum effective dose and listing side effects is something needing a lot of time to establish.

For mammography tests this is not a problem, the dosage of radiation can be immediately established because it does not depend on any effect that will take time to be observed, the necessary dose is simply the one that give images precise enough to evaluate the risk of cancer. Also ionizing radiation is well studied so side effects are already well characterized and can be evaluated without problem, specially with a source with a known amount and that is very stable such as diagnostic x-rays.

Who knows if there is even global warming, and even if there is, it is not confirmed humans greatly would contribute to it.

Scientist have already proved both things beyond any reasonable doubt, this is easy to prove the moment everybody that says otherwise is completely unable to provide any reference where a scientific institution contradicts this conclusion.

Yes, but alleged climate change is not.

Again, yes it is, nameless people on the internet claiming all the scientists of the world are wrong are not an argument against it.

A fire started by lightning and its intensity increased by hurricane winds is a result of Mother Nature.

Winds potentiated by climate change, acting on dry vegetation under low humidity because of the same reason is not "mother nature" at all.

“We've been saying this for 30 years,” said Ted Scambos, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado whose paper from 2000 was cited in Siegert and Hogg's article. “I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. I wish we were taking action faster."

And people still get surprised when scientists get involved in activism against climate change. Decades of proving the risks scientifically just for some people with hidden interests being able to mislead a lot of the public to believe there is nothing to fear or nothing to do against it.

Same as you--with your just throwing out "the experts" or "best scientists on the field" but with no names or data.

The article makes it clear that temperatures have been rising, not my claim.

You on the other hand is the one that says something no institute of science in the world is supporting, the burden of proof is then on you to prove the scientists are wrong.

It is trivially easy to find out what institutions say about future climatic trends.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-temperatures-set-reach-new-records-next-five-years

What scientists say the opposite? no one?

Besides, even when people provide names or data, you fail to confront the reality and instead shift to a different, often more bizarre argument.

That would be when you provide references that explicitly contradict what you said they would prove, in that case it is clear that the scientific consensus is there, even if you try to misrepresent it.

So, at the end you just recognize you have no reference for your claim that next year would be cooler, as always.

It's common knowledge that AI will replace, and already has replaced jobs in the health field. Why would anyone try and deny this?

Again, you have not been able to explain how the AI is going to conduct the examinations for the example given in this article, this means that in this specific example there is no replacement being done.

From your own reference

However, even if they can provide useful insights to humans, a real doctor's experience and ability to devise new treatment strategies are still critical.

At the least, aspects of their jobs could be supplemented by AI. 

It does not say medical professionals have been replaced, just that there is a chance for this happening in the future? why misrepresent what the reference says so openly?

Generally speaking the decision about a patient needing or not a test is done well before it is conducted, so patients are informed during their visits to a doctor about what frequency is better for their testing.

As long as the test is done properly, the interpretation of the results can be done later by professionals that will take into account many factors not necessarily considered at the time of the test (family history of disease for example) at the time these results are communicated to the patient they can also be informed if they should change the way they are being tested according to their specific situation as well.

This is obviously not a clear cut issue, as even the title asks, Do you agree, implicitly acknowledging the diverse scientific views.

It is crystal clear, every institution of science in a related field shares this conclusion, the diversity in views are about details, nothing about the question asked is being debated in scientific circles. Some people do not agree with other scientific facts like the shape of the planet, that do not mean the consensus is not there, or that is wrong.

A lot of these disasters are man made

The point of the question is about the extreme degree the disasters are taking, which is also human made but indirectly by climate change. The origin does nothing to explain why the destruction and frequency are on the rise, that comes from the climatic changes.

It's been a hot summer this year. Let's see how it turns out next year. Some scientists predict it will be cooler.

Which scientists? people keep making that claim but never provide any name (and specially any data).

As far as Japan's Meteorological Agency is concerned, it all depends on where you take measurements,

This of course do not apply to the temperatures recorded being progressively higher and higher (they are no matter where they are taken), it is just pertinent to whether those higher temperatures reach or not 40 degrees, so the play of words in appropriate.

Of course, this would be a different story of the title read that "every scientist says".

Scientist in general are in consensus about this,

can you bring any institution in the world disagreeing with this conclusion? no? that means the title is correct as it is. The same way as saying "doctors say exercise is good for your health" even if there are some that mistakenly say the opposite.

Maui's fires follow other extreme weather events in North America this summer, with record-breaking wildfires still burning across Canada and a major heat wave baking the U.S. southwest.

Extreme events are going to be more and more common and intense thanks to human activity derived climate change, this tragedy put into the spotlight why it is absolutely necessary for authorities to clearly understand this and plan accordingly, countless deaths could have been prevented in Maui if the people responsible for the safety of the population were at least aware things could go out of control easily and quickly.

Unfortunately there are still people that repeatedly try to convince others to stay in denial of the higher risks and will not give importance (nor take responsibility) when that denial ends up putting those people at risk.

I'm not allowed to point out that not all scientists say that?

Which scientific institution in the world say something different?

None? that is because there is a consensus, clear and well supported by the evidence, pretending some people with poor professional skills makes this false is wrong.

There will be always people that contradict the scientific consensus without any evidence to do it, some will even have credentials, that applies to anything you can think about. That does not mean you can say there is no scientific consensus about the shape of the planet of the origin of infections.

The study also did not find statistically significant reductions in breast cancer deaths associated with screening.

One mistaken belief a lot of people have is that more testing is always good, but as the study of this articles proves this is not always the case. Clinicians have to carefully consider a lot of things in order to make the decision of a test, how much benefit it brings to the patient, how much risk, what are the costs, etc.

As the final part of the article conveniently mentions this decision can be made easier by better tools for the diagnosis that can let doctors get much better information. Breast cancer can be cured for all practical means (as in eliminated completely so the patient will live the rest of their lives without a recurrence) for most patients as long as it is detected opportunely.

Unfortunately even with the evidence that points out clearly to higher risks thanks to the elevated temperatures people will always insist that their own ignorance need to be protected and any and all information and warnings automatically becomes fear mongering just because they personally fear being informed.

There is no longer any valid excuse, rational people do not fear the advice of experts about a reality that is changing. Lives and property can be saved but only if the new higher risks are accounted for, saying things are as usual only puts in danger others by misleading them away from easy and practical measures that now are necessary.

Right. People have a short memory, and forget the natural historical changes

What scientific arguments do you have to claim the experts in the field (that say current changes are related to climate change) forgot "historical changes"?

I've seen what these professionals can do and it is limited to the willingness of the person in question

So what? that still means they can become productive with proper treatment, this still contradicts your false dichotomy.

Going to school is not punishment and the kids will survive being compelled to do so.

Again, if the best professionals on the field say proper treatment is better on what authority can you claim they are wrong?

If not, how can we believe this time that we did it, but it was something else back then?

That is easy, scientific research can give a definitive answer, the problem is people ignoring completely the field and for some reason expecting the best experts on that field to be in the same situation.

More than embarrassing stories this is a collection of foreign tourist doing (minor) crimes in Japan, feels strange that no anecdote could be found in which the foreigner was not breaking the law.

what makes you think they will be out there being productive at 30?

Mostly the professional opinion of people that treat these kind of problems and say the patients can be reincorporated to society in a productive way if properly managed instead just punished to make adult feel better by using their authority.

As long as the Japanese justice system refuses to play along the rest of the international community this is bound to happen. Overseas it is infamous for the amount of abuse it can tolerate against accused people and there has been no change being even considered. Maybe it is better to get used to extraditions being contested.

Seeing how she has a boss that routinely dismiss outside input as not important and that do things that alienate sponsors without any consideration her job is not going to be easy at all.