If it were in the US you’d have had three days of people boarding up houses before the storm even landed.

And the day after the Hurricane passes they take all the wood and burn it. And a week or two later they’re off to Home Depot again to get more supplies for the next storm. And repeat….

Cougar
…Similarly with Scotland, their entire population is less that of London, no-one inside of the M25 gives a shit.

I really don’t want to see an independent Scotland (unless it gives me an escape route from this shit-show) but honestly anyone outside of Bow Bells thinking that the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg care about them is living in cloud cuckoo land…

That’s the whole point.

We know that, and that’s why we’d sooner have a government chosen by us rather than them.

That’s where I’m suggesting we’re heading… ministers, outriders and papers will spend the next 12 months preparing the public for poor trade deals, telling us that Brexit was never about getting better trade deals really, and that they don’t matter, and it’s only poorly run businesses being hit hard by us losing our previous access to international markets. Just a prediction.

That assumes that people will lay down and let it happen without question. Without a decent trade deal, even the most efficiently run businesses will suffer, with the knock on to the economy.
It’s hot air bravado from Javid to stoke things up before the trade talks start. It’s just a poor attempt to make the EU think that the UK is in a take it it leave it position regarding a deal. The reality is and will be much different. Remember, we are not in a totalitarian state where the Government controls all aspects of the economy. The Government could try to change things but they’re unlikely to succeed if it’s pushing against the tide, dreams vs reality

epicyclo

We know that, and that’s why we’d sooner have a government chosen by us rather than them.

Well…. some would, some don’t. 😆

That assumes that people will lay down and let it happen without question.

Have you been asleep?

‘Exact same benefits’ of the single market, after we leave?

‘They need us, more than we need them?’

‘No one is talking about leaving the single market.’

Just bait and switch after bait and switch. Those pushing for Brexit never really believed that outside the EU we’d quickly negotiate better access to non-EEA to markets, while also keeping our current access to the EEA. But that’s what they sold to us. It’s not happening. It’s never happening. The government has 12 months to convince the country that it was never what was promised, and that it wasn’t important anyway. Prepare for failing and moving companies to be blamed during the fallout that results from our tougher terms of trade with the RoW.

On my local newspaper’s FB page, people often berate the Labour MP for allegedly calling them “thick and racist” (she didn’t, AFAIK).

But it’s obvious from a cursory glance at a few stories that there is a sizeable element of thick and/or racist people commenting on the paper’s stories.

So there’s another paradox for ya.

weak but real correlations are masked by the noise and cannot be “proven”.

Users of mobile phones increased from zero several decades ago to billions now, with tens of millions of people having used them for 20 years or more. That’s a huge dataset so a very small correlation can be identified through the noise. If the correlation is so small that it disappears into the noise with a dataset that big, then it’s not a correlation, it’s just noise. A correlation is proven by showing that it’s there, not by speculating that it would be there if the data wasn’t too noisy.

So I’m accused of not understanding statistics by people who clearly don’t.

but incidence has stayed the same .

It hasn’t, read the links in one of my earlier posts or type some keys words into your browser of choice.

Roundup has been around and used by millions exposing billions since the 70s and yet it took until 2015 to get it recognised as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. The evidence had very little to do with big number statistics and a lot to do with small scale studies.

At this stage it would be unwise to categorically state there is no link between cancer and phone use as the Guardian did.

By any measure the the union with Scotland is much stronger and more important than being in the EU, and pretending otherwise is a bit daft.

By any measure? Like the measure that Scotland represents 8.2% of the UK population, yet somehow accounts for between 54% and 60% of the UK deficit last year?

BoardinBob

Subscriber
By any measure the the union with Scotland is much stronger and more important than being in the EU, and pretending otherwise is a bit daft.

By any measure? Like the measure that Scotland represents 8.2% of the UK population, yet somehow accounts for between 54% and 60% of the UK deficit last year?

Percentage there is relative, the uk deficit has reduced year on year for the last 8 years, as has scotlands, just not as quick.

If you know different, you are going to have to show your sums. I’ve not came across any reason as yet to doubt official figures.

If GERS are off, might well be as they are estimates but they’re the best we have to work with, then the scottish government should revise or replace them.

Roundup has been around and used by millions exposing billions since the 70s and yet it took until 2015 to get it recognised as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

Interesting choice of example, given that this particular ‘scandal’ is most likely fearmongering nonsense. It was sparked from a single successful court case in the US, and judges are not scientists (see: False Authority Syndrome). At best it is inconclusive at the moment, it is far from “probably carcinogenic” at all. If “billions” of people have been exposed, the correlation should be screamingly obvious due to people dropping like flies.

The evidence had very little to do with big number statistics and a lot to do with small scale studies.

You really need to listen to what hols2 is saying. Or consider a career in L’Oreal’s marketing department.

Kelvin, the Government needs businesses to be thriving and the economy buoyant. Decimating business through a bad trade deal/s would make no sense. Those in charge may have a break away agenda but they’re not idiots. The next election is less than 5 years away. That’s a really short time to break the economy then attempt to repair it in order to stay in power.

Javid is best ignored. I think efforts are better focused on creating a viable opposition party. Reflecting after the election, I think those that were led to believe Labour had any chance were deeply conned. The only elected Labour PM in the past 45 years was Tony Blair… is Labour actually fit for purpose as an opposition party? Should it really being telling people that it can win an election?

tbh given we now live in the era of trumpian politics, we really should stop listening to politics and instead watch what they do. It is possible to see through the noise.

would make no sense

Where have you been for the last four years?

Anyway, there is another thread for all this, I’m out of this duplicate one.

Should it really being telling people that it can win an election?

I think there is another thread for this as well, if not, start one, I’m really out of this one now… honest…

Sorry edukator yes there has been a rise according to research, never read your links

however study in australia found none
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30530588
and in tuscany that imprved detection is responsible for increase
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21327863

worth noting that studies into studies source of funding has also shown no bias
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28213724

The guardian never said that there was no link , they said…….

‘An Italian court has ruled that prolonged use of mobile phones can cause head tumours despite scientists overwhelmingly agreeing there is no evidence to back this up.’

scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change is real & humans have a role in it, too

The evidence had very little to do with big number statistics and a lot to do with small scale studies.

so far small scale studies have been unable to consistently show causation either

Im not saying that they do or dont cause cancer

but you’ll get as good as or better correlation with obesity as mobile phone use & brain cancer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558052/

so the Guardian are correct the Italian courts decision is scientifically flawed & certainly fails the ‘Beyond Reasonabl Doubt’ test at the moment

Do you really not believe that Roundup is toxic to humans, Cougar ? Despite all the studies. I find that surprising. The French government has based its approach on a report that includes:

« le risque d’exposition aux produits chimiques de la population agricole concernerait actuellement cent mille personnes. Le nombre de victimes potentielles pour lesquelles il y a une présomption forte de causalité entre la maladie et l’exposition est de l’ordre de dix mille personnes, dont deux tiers pour la maladie de Parkinson et un tiers pour les hémopathies malignes (2) ».

Google translate gives:
“The risk of chemical exposure to the agricultural population currently concerns one hundred thousand people. The number of potential victims for whom there is a strong presumption of causality between the disease and the exposure is of the order of ten thousand people, of which two thirds for Parkinson’s disease and one third for malignant hemopathies (2) “.

Edit: the Guraidan headline is:

Mobile phones cause tumours, Italian court rules, in defiance of evidence

Judges find prolonged use can cause tumours, going against mass of scientific opinion

The scientific world objectively states that it doesn’t know yet. The Guardian uses strong words “defiance” and “going against a mass of scientific opinion”. That is grossly misleading when the mass of scientific opinion is that there is an increase in the incidence of brain cancer for which there is as yet no demostrated cause, and mobile phone use has most derfinitely not been completely excluded except by scientists with vested interests and/or no objectivity.

The Guardian is regualrly highly judgemental in it’s reporting of European matters, this fits a trend I’ve observed. Imposing Guardian values, whatever they are, on other countries’ affairs. Usaully without taking the time to think about the level of hypocrisy given Britain’s record on whatever they are slagging off foreigners for.

They were anti-Brexit yet have made out Europeans to be nasty, incompetent, corrupt, dirty, polluting, untrustworthy for as long as I’ve been reading. They don’t write “EU Dirty Rats” (the Sun does that) but their selective reporting and cultural assassinations of European countries have contributed to anti-European sentiment just as much as “EU dirty rats”.

would make no sense

Where have you been for the last four years?

Following things quite closely, possibly too closely as taking a step back shows little has changed. Only at the end of the month will things actually change… slightly. I’d reckon we’re not getting out of the transition period any time soon, despite what’s been said.

Another example:

Guardian critical of Italy refusing refugees – it’s the EU’s job. Reading the article you’d never guess that the UK is in the EU and takes in next to no migrants.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/migrant-ship-storm-64-people-denied-safe-port-harbour-italy-malta

Similar to Guardian criticism of Spain’s age testing methods. OOOH, Britain would never do that (though David davis proposed it). Well the only reason Britian can be so self-righteous is that it isn’t trying to deal with tens/hundreds of thousands of migrants because it refues to take any, despite having started the war that caused a lot of the migration.

It’s just anti-European shite like the red tops but dressed up for the I’m-alright-Jack centre left.

Paradox in this case means hypocrisy.

Having worked with a lot of very tedious statistics I’m all too aware of the limits of what can and can’t be “proven”. Even when from work on the ground things were blindly obvious the stats were inconclusive, frustrating but that’s the way the numbers crunched. The problem is often the number of variables and the imposibility of controlling them or filtering. There are so many possible causes of cancer that pinning a barely statistically significant rise on any one of them simply isn’t possible. However it is equally impossible to prove that ther isn’t a correlation. In the case of mobile phones were looking at quite a short period of data, keep watching this space but don’t dismiss the connection yet.

Edit:

I’m well aware of what noisy data does – but again, this isn’t a problem with statistics or significance. It’s how you are going about getting that data and\or the methods you are using to analyse it – eg could you potentially use a complex systems approach?

For example, if I were you, I’d start working co-operatively with tech companies and volounteers to get actual usage statistics instead of self reported statistics.

That’d be a start.

I’d also question whether, considering the masses of other contributors to cancer that are making your data noisy – maybe focusing on finding out what are the bigger statistically significant contributors first before we start losing our collective shit about a lesser contributor and only a possible one at that. It’s less down my give a **** meter as a biologist/1-year statistics course person.m

In that regard, the Guardian is kind of right and telling the public otherwise will cause them to do an MMR vaccine.

And surely, this is something we could understand better by using a complex systems modelling/machine learning approach Edukator?

Considering that phone use has exploded in the last 20 years, even a small increase in risk would be evident by now, you’d expect an epidemic of brain cancer, but incidence has stayed the same

+1

If the risk was actually something to be worried about now – we would have seen it in the data already. Again, not that there might be a tiny, currently unmeasurable association.

But who cares? Tens of thousands, maybe **** everything contributes to cancer at that level.

but you’ll get as good as or better correlation with obesity as mobile phone use & brain cancer

Ah, yes. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Do you really not believe that Roundup is toxic to humans, Cougar ?

Well, that’s kind of a loaded question. I mean, I wouldn’t want to drink a pint of the stuff. Plenty of things are toxic in sufficient quantities, drinking too much water can kill you.

Do I think it’s toxic to the end consumer in the manner it’s been in widespread use for yonks? No, I do not, if it were then the body count would be astronomical. Do I think it’s toxic to the people spraying gallons upon gallons of the stuff without PPE? Possibly, research is inconclusive as I said, but that’s a very different question / claim from “Roundup probably gives you cancer.”

I haven’t just googled this yesterday BTW, I’ve been following the story for a little while now. For me it first broke on TV last year whilst I was on holiday in Scotland and my reaction was “really?” so I looked into it.

Despite all the studies.

There are many studies. There are however very few studies we can take seriously, most larger-scale studies have been funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome (either way).

The French government has based its approach on a report

Which report?

Is it robust? Unbiased? Widely peer-reviewed and a consensus reached? Or instigated by someone in the middle of a court case?

You would be right to raise concerns, but very wrong indeed to draw any conclusions given what we know conclusively thus far. Further study is needed.

(… if I were a betting man, I’d put money on this being aspartame all over again.)

And a typical UK farmer will now probably be doing nothing more than a single spray of roundup per crop basically when they sow. 1 spray less per crop and they could have all the organic badges, but on balance it’s a trade off that most farmers feel is worth it, and keep the legally specified (2 metres? forget the exact value) space between a sprayed field and an organic one.

But of course the papers would write a story as if farmers are spraying carcinogens every other day, leaving it on the harvested crop, specially to be left over in your daily loaf of bread.

Other countries and their farming practices may vary.