One of the reasons thinking people are growing increasingly cynical & skeptical regarding science & mainstream media derives from the conflicting information, plus contradicting information that makes sense – sometimes even more sense – than the mainstream theory.
And yes, the problems in science & media go together.
To compound things, the mainstream media has always loved to promote "exciting" & emotionally appealing science, even if it's deadly.
So even when science is decent, the media will warp it, even to the detriment of its readers.
For example, a 1917 book called Painless Childbirth-Eutocia and Nitrous Oxide-Oxygen Analgesia objected to the use of morphine and scopolamin (AKA hyosine, a hallucinogen) for labor pains due to the danger for mother & baby. Its author, Dr C. Henry Davis, preferred the much safer and more easily controlled doses of laughing gas.
Aside from the dangerous effects of the harder drugs on mother and baby, he noted that with these drugs, doctors increased their use of unnecessary & potentially harmful intervention (forceps, etc.) because the mother reached a "twilight sleep" where she didn't notice or object to the interventions.
(Some doctors even used forceps in up to 70% of the births they attended – facilitated by the twilighty mothers. How awful & unethical.)
Yet he complained that women came to doctors specifically for these "twilight sleep" drugs, duped by the press which omitted the real dangers to life, along with other risks:
And yes, the problems in science & media go together.
To compound things, the mainstream media has always loved to promote "exciting" & emotionally appealing science, even if it's deadly.
So even when science is decent, the media will warp it, even to the detriment of its readers.
For example, a 1917 book called Painless Childbirth-Eutocia and Nitrous Oxide-Oxygen Analgesia objected to the use of morphine and scopolamin (AKA hyosine, a hallucinogen) for labor pains due to the danger for mother & baby. Its author, Dr C. Henry Davis, preferred the much safer and more easily controlled doses of laughing gas.
Aside from the dangerous effects of the harder drugs on mother and baby, he noted that with these drugs, doctors increased their use of unnecessary & potentially harmful intervention (forceps, etc.) because the mother reached a "twilight sleep" where she didn't notice or object to the interventions.
(Some doctors even used forceps in up to 70% of the births they attended – facilitated by the twilighty mothers. How awful & unethical.)
Yet he complained that women came to doctors specifically for these "twilight sleep" drugs, duped by the press which omitted the real dangers to life, along with other risks:
The lay press has not referred to the mental disturbances which have been produced nor have they made known that in that part of Germany where the procedure originated, a large number of damage suits have been instituted in the courts against prominent physicians, because of various ill effects alleged to be due to 'Twilight Sleep'."
{ Jour. A. M. A., 1915, LXIV, 812.)
– Painless Childbirth-Eutocia and Nitrous Oxide-Oxygen Analgesia, pg. 45
This was incredibly irresponsible journalism, because it led to women either seeking out doctors who irresponsibly used "twilight sleep" or the women pressured their doctors to use it, despite the very real risks it carried for the mother and especially for the baby.
Evidence that Completely Unproven Theories Garner More Publicity & Promotion than Proven Fact – and Scientists are Complicit
But an even bigger problem is when fake news meets fake science.
Let's take the example of the recent wildfires in California.
Then several articles on Rivka Levy's blog opened my eyes to the possibility of an underground source for the fires.
This includes the devastating fire in Greece over the summer.
My own inquiry led me to an article that described several underground fires feeding on methane under Ventura County in California.
(Methane is highly, highly flammable.)
One such area, measured in 2008, topped 800 degrees Fahrenheit and melted the soles of the boots that stood on that area.
Geologists theorized that landslides in the 1990s may have caused this heating dynamic, but they admitted that they really don't know for sure.
(Earthquakes can cause landslides, BTW.)
Experts already claim that these uncontrollable methane-based underground fires were responsible for the 2007 Ranch Fire.
But it's not just Ventura County.
In the Dick Smith Wilderness, firefighters discovered that the cause of the Los Padres National Forest fire came from...underground.
Naturally, one wonders where other extreme hot spots lie within California, and whether geologists & the media know about them? And if they know, do they let us know too?
Furthermore, studies have shown that efforts to conserve/preserve forests actually increase the intensity of wildfires (in addition to making the forests uninhabitable for species native to that forest). Please see The Torah View of Our Planet Earth: Use It or Lose It for more on that.
The question should also arise as to whether earthquakes play a part in the underground heating.
Do earthquakes release more methane?
Or does the methane and underground fire influence earthquakes?
I'm not sure, but here is a screenshot of the Live Earthquakes Map from November 29, 2019:
Let's take the example of the recent wildfires in California.
Then several articles on Rivka Levy's blog opened my eyes to the possibility of an underground source for the fires.
This includes the devastating fire in Greece over the summer.
My own inquiry led me to an article that described several underground fires feeding on methane under Ventura County in California.
(Methane is highly, highly flammable.)
One such area, measured in 2008, topped 800 degrees Fahrenheit and melted the soles of the boots that stood on that area.
Geologists theorized that landslides in the 1990s may have caused this heating dynamic, but they admitted that they really don't know for sure.
(Earthquakes can cause landslides, BTW.)
Experts already claim that these uncontrollable methane-based underground fires were responsible for the 2007 Ranch Fire.
But it's not just Ventura County.
In the Dick Smith Wilderness, firefighters discovered that the cause of the Los Padres National Forest fire came from...underground.
Naturally, one wonders where other extreme hot spots lie within California, and whether geologists & the media know about them? And if they know, do they let us know too?
Furthermore, studies have shown that efforts to conserve/preserve forests actually increase the intensity of wildfires (in addition to making the forests uninhabitable for species native to that forest). Please see The Torah View of Our Planet Earth: Use It or Lose It for more on that.
The question should also arise as to whether earthquakes play a part in the underground heating.
Do earthquakes release more methane?
Or does the methane and underground fire influence earthquakes?
I'm not sure, but here is a screenshot of the Live Earthquakes Map from November 29, 2019:
As you can see, California is covered in orange & red dots representing earthquakes.
And while I don't have an earlier screenshot to show you, a regular glance at this map over the past year shows that while southern California hosts little earthquakes, it is usually not covered in them as it is here.
November 29 was at the tail-end of the wildfire breakout.
This map shows this morning, December 3 2019, after most of the wildfires are over:
And while I don't have an earlier screenshot to show you, a regular glance at this map over the past year shows that while southern California hosts little earthquakes, it is usually not covered in them as it is here.
November 29 was at the tail-end of the wildfire breakout.
This map shows this morning, December 3 2019, after most of the wildfires are over:
See? Many fewer earthquakes.
Much less fire now too.
Is there a connection?
It makes sense that there is, but when do we ever hear about it?
Certainly, the "preservation" of forests contributed to the wildfires.
But what do you mostly hear as the main contributing factor to extreme wildfires?
Manmade global warming!
Why is that? Why proclaim manmade global warming (which I don't believe in anyway) as the cause when real science points to forest "preservation" and underground methane fires as the more likely factor?
Real science means that they actually detected methane underground and found clear evidence (like smoke pouring out from underground) of real fires under the surface.
Not that they theorized about the methane and warbled on about "it seems like this" or "we assume that," but they actually detected it. You can physically measure it. And you can see the smoke.
Ironically, geologists told fire fighters NOT to put out the fires smoking away because geologists said it was better that the gasses burn rather than float around freely.
Hmm...
So there could just be highly flammable methane seeping out unburned in some areas?
Hmm...
Anyway, ignoring the obvious & much more rational need to explore methane & faulty "preservation" techniques is just one aspect that incites thinking people against mainstream media & popular science.
Instead of exploring the obvious (and proven, as far as "preservation" goes), the mainstream media continues to spout off about "manmade global warming" while scientists continue to weave mythologies about how human behavior is warming the state of California and contributes to extreme wildfires.
I guess it's more comfortable (and rakes in more money for fake environmental efforts) than facing the fact that there is something you can neither control nor prevent nor deal with (like underground methane fires).
Much less fire now too.
Is there a connection?
It makes sense that there is, but when do we ever hear about it?
Certainly, the "preservation" of forests contributed to the wildfires.
But what do you mostly hear as the main contributing factor to extreme wildfires?
Manmade global warming!
Why is that? Why proclaim manmade global warming (which I don't believe in anyway) as the cause when real science points to forest "preservation" and underground methane fires as the more likely factor?
Real science means that they actually detected methane underground and found clear evidence (like smoke pouring out from underground) of real fires under the surface.
Not that they theorized about the methane and warbled on about "it seems like this" or "we assume that," but they actually detected it. You can physically measure it. And you can see the smoke.
Ironically, geologists told fire fighters NOT to put out the fires smoking away because geologists said it was better that the gasses burn rather than float around freely.
Hmm...
So there could just be highly flammable methane seeping out unburned in some areas?
Hmm...
Anyway, ignoring the obvious & much more rational need to explore methane & faulty "preservation" techniques is just one aspect that incites thinking people against mainstream media & popular science.
Instead of exploring the obvious (and proven, as far as "preservation" goes), the mainstream media continues to spout off about "manmade global warming" while scientists continue to weave mythologies about how human behavior is warming the state of California and contributes to extreme wildfires.
I guess it's more comfortable (and rakes in more money for fake environmental efforts) than facing the fact that there is something you can neither control nor prevent nor deal with (like underground methane fires).
P.S.
Just as a side point...
You may have notice the comparison of earthquakes in other areas of the world.
According to my regular perusal of the map, there are always small earthquakes occurring in Alaska and California, and usually in Hawaii too.
The states of Washington & Oregon also show small earthquakes on a monthly basis.
However, I don't remember seeing earthquakes in Oklahoma or Kansas until around 2 months ago, and now they're appearing regularly. What does that mean? I don't know.
Also, Puerto Rico was not hosting earthquakes previously, but now they are weekly at least.
South America has also suddenly started seeing some earthquakes recently, especially in Chile. Today, it had one as big as a 6.
Just for fun, I decided to check the map again just now tonight December 3, 2019:
You may have notice the comparison of earthquakes in other areas of the world.
According to my regular perusal of the map, there are always small earthquakes occurring in Alaska and California, and usually in Hawaii too.
The states of Washington & Oregon also show small earthquakes on a monthly basis.
However, I don't remember seeing earthquakes in Oklahoma or Kansas until around 2 months ago, and now they're appearing regularly. What does that mean? I don't know.
Also, Puerto Rico was not hosting earthquakes previously, but now they are weekly at least.
South America has also suddenly started seeing some earthquakes recently, especially in Chile. Today, it had one as big as a 6.
Just for fun, I decided to check the map again just now tonight December 3, 2019:
Golly, look at that. Look at what a difference a few hours makes.
That's the first time I remember seeing an earthquake in Idaho or Utah, but they're pretty tiny ones, both under 2 on the Richter scale.
Montana also has a tiny dot not visible here.
California is acting up again (along with Nevada).
And Guatemala & El Salvador have been hit with 1 earthquake each measuring 4.6 and 4.9, respectively.
There's Chile's 6 right there.
Down there near Australia is Fiji, with a 4.9, which happens commonly enough in Fiji.
And there you go.
That's the first time I remember seeing an earthquake in Idaho or Utah, but they're pretty tiny ones, both under 2 on the Richter scale.
Montana also has a tiny dot not visible here.
California is acting up again (along with Nevada).
And Guatemala & El Salvador have been hit with 1 earthquake each measuring 4.6 and 4.9, respectively.
There's Chile's 6 right there.
Down there near Australia is Fiji, with a 4.9, which happens commonly enough in Fiji.
And there you go.
RSS Feed