posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:32 AM
I don't subscribe, but am given the previous months every month and have read it routinely for several years. The more I try to become a less
gullible sheep the more I can see this magazine is going the way of MSM...
The inside cover of the May 2011 Scientific American has an ad for GOLDMAN SACHS
Page 12 "Trust Me, I'm a Scientist"
First paragraph belittles 'normal' folks who disagree with doctors\scientists, stating that although half of Americans believe or are unsure about
the vaccine-autism link, scientists can change their mind at any time on what is good or bad for you, so just go with it.
Oh and those of you who don't believe in the flu PANDEMIC! PANDEMIC! PANDEMIC! are simply trying to cope with emotions of fear and hopelessness...
Page 16 "Warning Flooding Ahead"
"Human-induced climate change is bringing on more extreme weather. After years of research, scientists have begun to detect a human fingerprint in
many extreme weather patterns". The models used predictions of concentrations of greenhouse gases over a 50 year period, and I don't think those
models included undersea volcanoes, point being NOBODY knows how many there are = any human greenhouse emissions models will be FLAWED!
I could have sworn before climategate it was called global warming right? I guess a ski resort in Utah re-opening in June is bad for the
global warming business this year.
Page 18 "When Cars Are Greener Than People"
When scientists crunched numbers they found that four men running released more CO2 than if they drove a hybrid car for 5km. Right... To bad most
people don't consider the production end of that eco-friendly car. Where did all the parts come from just to make the electronics? Hybrid cars
consume huge amounts of rare earth metals that come from far away places, which in turn takes lots of fossil fuels to ship everything to one location,
and even more to ship it to a consumer.
Page 20 "Cancer Testing? There's an App for that"
Really? Cell phones are now officially in the same category as lead and chloroform as a carcinogen. I'm sure if you have cancer, it will love you
waving a 4w radiation wand over it...
Page 22 "The Newest Nuclear Plants: As Always, Safety Is A Balancing Act"
There are plans for 14 new nuclear reactors in the US, stating they will be safer than the Fukushima Daiichi plant with passive (non-human
interface) safety features, but says nothing about the bad GE engineering. It goes on to say it really breaks down to an "acceptable balance between
safety and cost", and ending with "What risk are you willing to tolerate?"
Page 23 talks about the new plans for a new Chernobyl sarcophagus, and how it was the worst nuclear accident ever to occur in history...
I wonder if they want people to think Fukushima isn't going to get any worse...
Some more vaccine promoting acticles and some more climate change articles, VERY LITTLE actual science.
Should be called "Speculative and Biased Pseudoscience for Some Americans"