4 ms·

Yeah, defending the belief in fan death is really damaging to his credibility in my eyes.

marshray 13y ago
After all, aircraft are basically just sealed rooms with the fans on the outside.
coldtea 13y ago
Does the same hold for EPA? ">This pamphlet from the EPA, at pages 49 and 51, clearly states the hazard of using portable electric fans during high heat. It specifically says “Portable electric fans can … increase the circulation of hot air, which increases thermal stress and health risks[,]” and “DON’T use a portable electric fan in a closed room without windows or doors open to the outside.”
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they weren't actually? Yeah. It would.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they weren't actually? Yeah. It would. How exactly do you know that "they weren't actually"? Do you have an autopsy that states otherwise? [1] That the EPA marks such use of fans as increasing "thermal stress and health risks" is an indicator that there ARE health risks associated with the use of fans. If those risks can involve death is up to dispute (without further analysis), but it's a first step towards this hypothesis. You characterizing them as "random deaths" is a circular argument. It pressuposses what it's supposed to prove. I'd rather go with science and choose my words carefully. [1] Oh, and to prevent any reading comprehension challenged idiot (tons of them on the intertubes) that would jump and shout: "the lack of an autopsy is not proof that they were indeed caused by fans", I never implied such. I only imply the reverse: that without an autopsy we cannot say they WERENT caused by it.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Donwnvotes? It seems some people hate the scientific method, and only pay lip service to science as some kind of religion ("who needs experiments and proofs"). Which is kind of sad.

After all, aircraft are basically just sealed rooms with the fans on the outside.

Does the same hold for EPA? ">This pamphlet from the EPA, at pages 49 and 51, clearly states the hazard of using portable electric fans during high heat. It specifically says “Portable electric fans can … increase the circulation of hot air, which increases thermal stress and health risks[,]” and “DON’T use a portable electric fan in a closed room without windows or doors open to the outside.”

jamesaguilar 13y ago
If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they weren't actually? Yeah. It would.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they weren't actually? Yeah. It would. How exactly do you know that "they weren't actually"? Do you have an autopsy that states otherwise? [1] That the EPA marks such use of fans as increasing "thermal stress and health risks" is an indicator that there ARE health risks associated with the use of fans. If those risks can involve death is up to dispute (without further analysis), but it's a first step towards this hypothesis. You characterizing them as "random deaths" is a circular argument. It pressuposses what it's supposed to prove. I'd rather go with science and choose my words carefully. [1] Oh, and to prevent any reading comprehension challenged idiot (tons of them on the intertubes) that would jump and shout: "the lack of an autopsy is not proof that they were indeed caused by fans", I never implied such. I only imply the reverse: that without an autopsy we cannot say they WERENT caused by it.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Donwnvotes? It seems some people hate the scientific method, and only pay lip service to science as some kind of religion ("who needs experiments and proofs"). Which is kind of sad.