Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on March 21, 2011 at 6:03pm

I think your topic addresses one of the most important issues that we humans face. The world's just getting more and more complicated, and it's getting more and more difficult to determine reliable sources of information. Even "experts" need to work hard at wading through crap to find the good data. I think one of our greatest challenges is finding which experts are the most informed, and communicate what they know to non-experts.

Perhaps there's a better word than "expert", because some people automatically discount whatever someone who's called an expert says? That's part of our problem. How can we cooperate on finding good information, and making it more accessible to all? (I guess that's exactly what we're trying to do, here.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 21, 2011 at 6:20pm

How about a skeptical news feed?  We start by subscribing to Reuters, Associated Press, and any other significant news feeds so we can be certain to catch all the data being generated.  Then we filter out stories that don't offer any citations, make adequate claims of first hand knowledge, or which simply cite across to another news feed.  Finally we index the facts being claimed to check for contradictions, developing an algorithm for dealing with common patterns.  Finally we generate and syndicate a news feed based on the results.

 

It might make for a rather delayed feed of some rather dry news, but it is likely the sort of thing that could be marketable to those who want quality facts, like investors and educational institutions.  Just a thought.

 

(BTW, this used to be very representative of the BBC and CBC)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on March 19, 2011 at 2:22pm

I think demonizing these poor passengers is disgraceful.  The minor radiation they carry should be ignored.  They should receive any help we can give them.

BUT!  There is a real and HUGE threat to everyone from this meltdown.  The major thrust of news mis-information is saying things like "---% increase in radiation is not dangerous to human health."  Please notice how World stock market reports often eclipse updates on the meltdowns.  They seem to be saying, "Don't worry about radiation, just keep buying stocks as usual!"

 My understanding of nuclear radiation is that when a single "ray" passes through a cell's nucleus during the process of cell division, and, rather than killing that cell, results in two new cells which do not function correctly AND which multiply more frequently than the original cell, a cancer  has begun.  The percentage of resulting cancers increases with the level of radiation, but one cell damaged during division is all it takes.  Even normal background radiation causes cancer, as well as beneficial, but mostly non- beneficial mutations - Evolution. 

Yes, the news is manipulated. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 19, 2011 at 4:35pm

Yes, well I started this particular discussion because a friend of mine, who is actually rather intelligent, suddenly seemed to develop a rather distorted perspective on Japan.  I'll admit that she is rather prone to alarmist news, typically follows the most alarmist links, and I often end up doing damage control by trying to find some well researched news articles for her.  I was really surprised, however, than in only a week she had come to believe that the US military was recalling troops from across the nation to go 'save Japan' while other nations just 'stood on the sidelines again', and now the US itself was in danger from 'dozens of radiation poisoned passengers'.  Now obviously she had clicked through to some very erroneous blogs, but the germ of that story began with main stream alarmist news.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Noah on March 21, 2011 at 7:45am

Send her to the Rachel Maddow Blog. 

Rachel has been working harder than anyone in the MSM to dispel radiation hype, as well as presenting a great deal of science on this event. Hit the archives for earlier in the month.

They also archive show clips.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 21, 2011 at 9:56am

Thank you.  That is very helpful because she happens to be a big fan of Rachel Maddow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 22, 2011 at 11:32am

I would like to thank Nelson for the following relevant link in this week's Sunday School article:
http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/why-dont-journalists-link-to-prim...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page