Second set of 50 at https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/8750/
Good Scientist Cartoon. 21st set of five.
I am surprised and disappointed that a so-called “Good Scientist” cartoon should include a statement so obviously untrue as that in Number 105.
I should add that everything written by the so-called “Rev Dodgson” should be disregarded.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I should add that everything written by the so-called “Rev Dodgson” should be disregarded.
It wasn’t me. Honest.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I am surprised and disappointed that a so-called “Good Scientist” cartoon should include a statement so obviously untrue as that in Number 105.I should add that everything written by the so-called “Rev Dodgson” should be disregarded.
ROFL
102 have me a wry smile..
Oops, I thought I’d posted 22nd set. Posted on wrong thread perhaps?
Good Scientist Cartoon. 23rd set of five
114 I thought an excellent example of the genre, even if I don’t fully agree with the message.
It also introduced me to Mary Midgley, who seems to be about as extreme an either-orist as you can get. If her mode of thought is influential (and I suspect that it is), then how come there is no debate about it?
115 on the other hand …
Wait, is there a sex change in 114?
But in the fair dinkum department, the End-Permian E.L.E. must have been the worst environmental disaster.
The Rev Dodgson said:
What’s wrong with 115?
114 I thought an excellent example of the genre, even if I don’t fully agree with the message.It also introduced me to Mary Midgley, who seems to be about as extreme an either-orist as you can get. If her mode of thought is influential (and I suspect that it is), then how come there is no debate about it?
115 on the other hand …
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:What’s wrong with 115?
114 I thought an excellent example of the genre, even if I don’t fully agree with the message.It also introduced me to Mary Midgley, who seems to be about as extreme an either-orist as you can get. If her mode of thought is influential (and I suspect that it is), then how come there is no debate about it?
115 on the other hand …
The obvious message is that the two cities where nuclear weapons have been used are now doing OK, so long term effects of nuclear radiation are not a problem, which is so obviously wrong that it isn’t even funny.
The Rev Dodgson said:
“So obviously wrong” seems a very strong assertion. Could you please elucidate?
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:What’s wrong with 115?
114 I thought an excellent example of the genre, even if I don’t fully agree with the message.It also introduced me to Mary Midgley, who seems to be about as extreme an either-orist as you can get. If her mode of thought is influential (and I suspect that it is), then how come there is no debate about it?
115 on the other hand …
The obvious message is that the two cities where nuclear weapons have been used are now doing OK, so long term effects of nuclear radiation are not a problem, which is so obviously wrong that it isn’t even funny.
Michael V said:
“So obviously wrong” seems a very strong assertion. Could you please elucidate?
The obvious message is that the two cities where nuclear weapons have been used are now doing OK, so long term effects of nuclear radiation are not a problem, which is so obviously wrong that it isn’t even funny.
Nuclear radiation (above some level that we don’t exactly know) kills people. It therefore follows that the long term effects above that level (whatever it is) are a problem.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:“So obviously wrong” seems a very strong assertion. Could you please elucidate?
The obvious message is that the two cities where nuclear weapons have been used are now doing OK, so long term effects of nuclear radiation are not a problem, which is so obviously wrong that it isn’t even funny.
Nuclear radiation (above some level that we don’t exactly know) kills people. It therefore follows that the long term effects above that level (whatever it is) are a problem.
Do you think those two cities should be evacuated?
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:“So obviously wrong” seems a very strong assertion. Could you please elucidate?
The obvious message is that the two cities where nuclear weapons have been used are now doing OK, so long term effects of nuclear radiation are not a problem, which is so obviously wrong that it isn’t even funny.Nuclear radiation (above some level that we don’t exactly know) kills people. It therefore follows that the long term effects above that level (whatever it is) are a problem.
Do you think those two cities should be evacuated?
Why would I think that?
Some science on the question, should it be required:
https://phys.org/news/2015-07-hiroshima-nagasaki-fukushima-long-term-psychological.html
…
In another Series paper , researchers led by Professor Kenji Kamiya, Vice President of Hiroshima University, Japan, report on the long-term health impact of radiation exposure from the two biggest nuclear disasters in history—the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine in 1986.
Evidence from the Japanese Life Span Study that followed 94000 atomic bomb survivors from 1950, 5 years after the bombings to the current day, reveals a clear increased lifetime risk of cancer in survivors. The risk was found to be proportional to dose for solid cancers, and a higher risk was found in those exposed as children or young adults. After Chernobyl, an increased risk of childhood thyroid cancer among those with internal exposures from consuming radioactivity in food was also seen in affected areas. Hereditary effects in the children of survivors have not yet been detected.
…
The Rev Dodgson said:
114 I thought an excellent example of the genre, even if I don’t fully agree with the message.It also introduced me to Mary Midgley, who seems to be about as extreme an either-orist as you can get. If her mode of thought is influential (and I suspect that it is), then how come there is no debate about it?
115 on the other hand …
You’ve guessed correctly what’s coming next. More about Midgley coming in 116.
> End Permian
Or end PreCambrian
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:“So obviously wrong” seems a very strong assertion. Could you please elucidate?
The obvious message is that the two cities where nuclear weapons have been used are now doing OK, so long term effects of nuclear radiation are not a problem, which is so obviously wrong that it isn’t even funny.Nuclear radiation (above some level that we don’t exactly know) kills people. It therefore follows that the long term effects above that level (whatever it is) are a problem.
Do you think those two cities should be evacuated?
You’ve given me a lot to think about here.
In particular, I know exactly why “above some level that we don’t exactly know”. We “don’t exactly know” because the relevant scientific studies contradict one another. Good topic for a future cartoon.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 24th set of five.
Love 119 – Scientist Emojis.
Why do the scientists in 119 all have penises?
Divine Angel said:
Why do the scientists in 119 all have penises?
Because scientists without penises don’t pretend to be emotionless?
Or just another gender stereotype perhaps.
Michael V said:
Love 119 – Scientist Emojis.
Me too.
On the question of should Hiroshima and Nagasaki be evacuated, the answer is no because:
1. The radiation levels are so low that the evacuation would certainly cause more early deaths than will result from the radiation.
2. If we are going to start evacuating cities, there are many others that should be evacuated first because of air pollution, earthquake risk, and/or other risks. Tokyo for instance.
Divine Angel said:
Why do the scientists in 119 all have penises?
Tampon strings.
Yeah, DA, that worried me too. I need a gender-neutral image but haven’t yet figured out what a generic “scientist” should look like. I want to avoid the classic “mad scientist” image of lab coat, wild hair and thick spectacles, but can’t see an alternative. Any ideas?
Good Scientist Cartoon. 25th set of five.
125 a bit sexist perhaps?
Still, at least it’s equally sexist.
The answer is civil engineers by the way.
mollwollfumble said:
Divine Angel said:
Why do the scientists in 119 all have penises?
Yeah, DA, that worried me too. I need a gender-neutral image but haven’t yet figured out what a generic “scientist” should look like. I want to avoid the classic “mad scientist” image of lab coat, wild hair and thick spectacles, but can’t see an alternative. Any ideas?
DA, is this a good look for a gender-neutral modern scientist? Without the beard. It’s the ecologist/biologist John Box.
It doesn’t work. This is my attempt at a gender-neutral scientist based on John Box. Not good.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 26th set of five.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 27th set of five.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 28th set of five
Divine Angel said:
Why do the scientists in 119 all have penises?
It took a while, but search for a unisex scientist that avoids all the normal cliches eventually led me to this:
Another arm on the other side and it’s sorted…
Good Scientist Cartoon. 30th set of five
I like 150.
Most thought provoking.
I’ll have to come up with my own, excluding all those named :)