DieCommie said:

Quote:

What would you like to see to show you that medical corporations are corrupt to the bone and suppress information/intentionally deny researching something that would make them loose money???

---

I would like to see that ground breaking research come out of countries like North Korea where the corporations have no power and a lone researcher could easily defect to and share the cure with.

---

What?

Why korea?

Quote:

It's possible to create filament bulbs that have an indefinite lifespan.

---

DieCommie said:

I dont doubt that they try, I doubt that they do.

---

Rahz said:

Really? How about 109 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs

---

While it might seem astonishing that so many longest-lasting light bulbs have been so infrequently turned off, this is the precise reason for their longevity. Most of the wear and tear that leads to burnouts in incandescent light bulbs is caused by turning them on and off, not by burning them. Each time the bulb is turned on and off, the filament is heated and cooled. This causes the material of the filament to expand and contract, in turn causing tiny stress cracks to develop. The more the light is turned on and off, the larger these cracks grow, until eventually the filament breaks at some point, causing the light to burn out.

This doesn't really make your point.

I think your expectations exceed the English language. Take your pick:

1. Lasting for an unknown length of time: "indefinite detention".
2. Not clearly expressed or defined; vague: "their status remains indefinite". 

A person producing a 109 year bulb would have no idea how long it would last. They certainly wouldn't have rated it for 1000 hours.

Anyway, back when the light bulb was novel, there was a lot of work done to extend the length of the filaments life. It was successful! Manufacturers started producing 2000 hour bulbs, 2500 hour bulbs, 3000 hour bulbs, and more. The bulb manufacturers were involved in a techno-war. Eventually it came to light that bulbs could be created with indefinite lifespan, and that would severely curtail the sales of all manufacturers. So they got together and called a truce.

Quote:

Nor have you even presented a shred of evidence supporting why engineering light bulbs to last 'indefinitely' is actually a good thing that we would want.

---

Icelander said:

Rahz said:

Really? How about 109 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs

---

While it might seem astonishing that so many longest-lasting light bulbs have been so infrequently turned off, this is the precise reason for their longevity. Most of the wear and tear that leads to burnouts in incandescent light bulbs is caused by turning them on and off, not by burning them. Each time the bulb is turned on and off, the filament is heated and cooled. This causes the material of the filament to expand and contract, in turn causing tiny stress cracks to develop. The more the light is turned on and off, the larger these cracks grow, until eventually the filament breaks at some point, causing the light to burn out.

This doesn't really make your point.

---

Rahz said:

Icelander said:

Rahz said:

Really? How about 109 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs

---

While it might seem astonishing that so many longest-lasting light bulbs have been so infrequently turned off, this is the precise reason for their longevity. Most of the wear and tear that leads to burnouts in incandescent light bulbs is caused by turning them on and off, not by burning them. Each time the bulb is turned on and off, the filament is heated and cooled. This causes the material of the filament to expand and contract, in turn causing tiny stress cracks to develop. The more the light is turned on and off, the larger these cracks grow, until eventually the filament breaks at some point, causing the light to burn out.

This doesn't really make your point.

---

Yes, but if you read further down, there is a bulb from the 30's which is turned on and off on a regular basis. Go buy a 1000 hour bulb, plug it in and don't turn it off. See how long it lasts. It is true that turning filament bulbs on and off will shorten lifespan, but that does not take away from my point.

---

DieCommie said:

How about it?  109 years isnt even close to your original claim.  Nor have you even presented a shred of evidence supporting why engineering light bulbs to last 'indefinitely' is actually a good thing that we would want.

And most importantly, you have not even bothered to describe how we could make a light bulb that lasts indefinitely.  I suspect you dont even really understand how light bulbs work or why they break. 

---

You called bull shit on my assertion that a product's lifespan was indefinite when you didn't even know the meaning of the word indefinite. You straw man me by arguing whether such a product was desirable or not, which has nothing to do with whether it can be done or not. Then you straw man me again by suggesting I don't understand how a bulb works, as if that has anything to do with a bulbs lifespan.

BOOOOOOooooooo.....

AlphaFalfa said:

Okay, lets simplify all of this; what proof do you need to show that my claims are true???

You still haven't answered this.

---

Quote:

What would you like to see to show you that medical corporations are corrupt to the bone and suppress information/intentionally deny researching something that would make them loose money???

---

Rahz said:

DieCommie said:

How about it?  109 years isnt even close to your original claim.  Nor have you even presented a shred of evidence supporting why engineering light bulbs to last 'indefinitely' is actually a good thing that we would want.

And most importantly, you have not even bothered to describe how we could make a light bulb that lasts indefinitely.  I suspect you dont even really understand how light bulbs work or why they break. 

---

You called bull shit on my assertion that a product's lifespan was indefinite when you didn't even know the meaning of the word indefinite.

---

Quote:

No one can prevent that no matter how big or evil the light bulb corporations may be.

---

Icelander said:

I enjoy 18th century lighting.  Very romantic.

---

Let's face it. Your feeble orbs just cannot handle bright light any more.

johnm214 said:

AlphaFalfa said:

Okay, lets simplify all of this; what proof do you need to show that my claims are true???

You still haven't answered this.

---

Such evidence that renders your conclusion more likely than not.  I'm not sure I understand your question or the relevance of it, however.  You made a claim and it is your obligation to substantiate the conclusion.

I have. It's common sense to recognize that the few multinational corporations which mass produce pharmaceuticals would seek and due to their power, succeed in suppressing and distorting scientific research for their own benefit. If you ask a me; a person who is concerned with profiting from others illness will MOST LIKELY seek to keep people sick. My conclusion is thus made more likely by the fact that a company that profits from peoples illness is most likely going to use all its power to alter/halt scientific research to its own benefit.

Here is 'HEALTH CANADA' admitting that pharmaceuticals under report their findings, findings that are relevant.

"Drug companies do have to report to Health Canada around spontaneously reported events, but those are under-reported. It's not the drug companies' fault, but they just are, and there's no systematic look at this."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2007/03/08/drug-safety.html

They don't blame the drug companies but the problem is that under-reporting is not against the law. A company can suppress data legally, because we they have the rights of citizens, but more importantly the freedom of expression which allows for this.

But then again, your going to say; I need to see evidence that it is happening, right? To bad, it doesn't exist, but the what you suggest( that they do) is also impossible to prove. So it comes back to whether or not you trust that a company is going to look after your health or their profits!o


  Even if I couldnot imagine any way it could be proven, this would not change matters.

Frankly: it isn't my burden to envision some way your claim could be proven, but I imagine you could show that: a) science is being produced that is incorrect; b) that incorrect or unreliable science is rendering the scientific body of knowledge on the subject (such as treatments for cancer or supplements to prevent cancer, etcet.)corrupt and unable to be believed, used, et cet;

The studies on diet therapies to heal degenerative conditions do not exist. Only a few studies do and most are epidemiological. Therefore, you ask for something that doesn't exist and this is exactly what my problem is with the scientific research on health; it takes the direction of funding and funding is largely taken in the direction of drug research.


c)such science as in a) is a result of the factors you claim: some funding shenanigans, bribes, bias, whatever


I would love to show you evidence of this but it ultimatley comes down to trust because it is very difficult to find evidence that shows companies are intentionally suppressing research in any given field, AS IT IS NOT THEIR DUTY TO DO RESEARCH ON ANY GIVEN FIELD. IE. A cancer drug company doesn't have to focus on altnerative therapies while trying to find a drug that helps people with breast cancer. They can do whatever they want and so it comes down to trust on this issue. Personally, I have seen ample anecdotal evidence that shows the positive effects of the raw food diet in particular so I need no more proof that there is some corruption at work.


But it really doesn't matter what I would accept, as there is no guarentee I am correct.  It suffices to observe that you haven't even presented an argument to support your claim that science on some subject is becoming unreliable or wrong due to the effects of bias, profit-motivated research and so forth.

Quote:

What would you like to see to show you that medical corporations are corrupt to the bone and suppress information/intentionally deny researching something that would make them loose money???

---

Again, you seem to have presumed that proving this fact, which I never argued one way or the other, has some relevance.  I don't see how some corrupt corporation that suppresses/denies research on things for financial motivations would render the science in that area incorrect, unusuable, or whatever. (though if you can link this circumstance with the challenged claim and then prove it, go ahead).

Someone suppressing information wouldn't seem to affect the science in existance: that science would still be as good or as poor as it was, and a review of the literature would not somehow come to faulty conclusions or wrong conclusions as a result, I wouldn't think.

No it doesn't, BUT  it does not give people who rely on science and give to charities for a cure for illness such as cancer a complete look at all avialable therapies. Most people won't trust alternative therapies that ACTUALLY WORK if their are no studies on those therapies.

Rahz said:

DieCommie said:

How about it?  109 years isnt even close to your original claim.  Nor have you even presented a shred of evidence supporting why engineering light bulbs to last 'indefinitely' is actually a good thing that we would want.

And most importantly, you have not even bothered to describe how we could make a light bulb that lasts indefinitely.  I suspect you dont even really understand how light bulbs work or why they break. 

---

You called bull shit on my assertion that a product's lifespan was indefinite when you didn't even know the meaning of the word indefinite.

---

Well, was he correct or not?  What is the meaning of the word indefinite that you are claiming, i.e. what percisely were you claiming and how does your 109 year bulb source substantiate your claim?

I wouldn't think 109 years is an indefinite bulb, but what is your argument?

---