StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stas Bush wrote:I am not sure the lead ingots scavenged on the French wreck were 18th century production, either.

Probably not. France at that point had no lead mining in her colonies AFAIK. I think they were Roman ingots as well - it is not too uncommon to hear of unused deposits being melted down in those times.

Dr Roberts wrote:Plenty of the lead is sourced legally which is what is expected by physicists. A physicist doesn't personally go and get it they order it from catalogues expecting it to be keg ally sourced.

How stupid and naive do you think physicists are, really? In any case, as Stas said, the american scumbags knew it was trouble. The French government tried to prevent the sale. How the hell can you argue good faith here?

Do physicists know the meaning of the word "due dilligence"? If they are that sloppy in procuring materials as everyone apparently tries to make them out to be (which is laughable apologia) then how can you trust them in getting their experiments right?

The sloppy argument isn't really a good one either. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that "underwater exploration company" is a company that salvages shipwreck materials, and if they consistently offer sizeable amounts of very high quality inert lead... hmm... yeah right. No idea where that comes from.

Ok, now that we seem to have evidence that some researchers did buy lead then knew came at the cost of destruction of an archaeological site.

The only reason I was looking at the chance that the people using the lead would not know it could be harmfully sources was because you were morally outraged that someone could scavenge for a dig site and that they must know what they were doing, and everyone knows about these sites (pretty sure nobody in this thread knew this was a problem before this thread).

So now we can look at the balance of harms:

On the one hand we have wreck sites that will in all likelihood never be excavated by archaeologists, or at least not for centuries, and if they were we would have the potential to obtain... a marginal improvement in after dinner conversation? (Please cite a single instance of an archaeological find beating modern science in the last 50 years.)

On the other hand, can you calculate the number of deaths that would have come from not having any one of MRI/PET/CT scans for an extra decade? Because they all came out of fundamental physics research like the experiments you want to destroy. (You can say this time is different, and we've reached the end of science, but history is littered with people who have made that statement as I'm sure you know.)

Of course the destruction of world heritage is not something that should be done lightly, but to pretend that purely cultural concerns outweigh the need for the advancement of our current society going into some of the toughest conditions humanity will ever have to face is to sacrifice the future. We must not become a dig site for someone else.

The impact of MRI scans on life expectancy en masse in my opinion was minimal; most of the saved lives in the XX century came from antibiotics in general and penicillins in particular. Very much so due to the ease and low cost of production this saved literally billions of lives in the Third World.

The core argument I'd say is that neutrino research is just one of the many areas in fundamental physics, whereas shipwrecks and other archeological heritage sites tend to be destroyed by black diggers routinely anyway; there's hardly a need to exacerbate the problem by giving them yet more solid financial incentives for plunder.

It is also true that you can get this lead from museums legally if you bother to make an agreement. Considering the situation, I see no reason why other scientific teams should just encourage black diggers instead of entering into agreements with museum teams like with CUORE. There's no need to turn this into another war of the currents or some other instance where scientific schools are at odds and grab each other's throats. Encouraging illegal activity and dismissing it as acceptable damage won't make it easier to reach a compromise.

You should also know that you're speaking to the most anti-Luddite person on this board, perhaps.

Stas Bush wrote:From the link:

Roman lead is essential for conducting these experiments because it offers purity and such low levels of radioactivity – all the more so the longer it has spent underwater – which current methods for producing this metal cannot reach.

I think this nails it. There's no other source for this type of lead. It is scavenging. So unless they buy it all from museums like they did in the CUORE case, they know they're getting in a shady deal. Either museum or black scavengers. It's that simple.

It's not however necessarily from Roman or other particularly interesting ancient sources. The only criteria is it was underwater before 1945, when atomic bombs started to be initiated in the atmosphere. There are two large and obvious sources of shipwrecks occuring in the 20th century itself before that time. The wreck of the Tirpitz was salvaged for low activity steel, for instance. I don't know if modern ships contain greater or lesser proportion of lead than Roman ones, but given the much greater numbers and large size even a small proportion would be competitive.

energiewende wrote:It's not however necessarily from Roman or other particularly interesting ancient sources. The only criteria is it was underwater before 1945, when atomic bombs started to be initiated in the atmosphere. There are two large and obvious sources of shipwrecks occuring in the 20th century itself before that time. The wreck of the Tirpitz was salvaged for low activity steel, for instance. I don't know if modern ships contain greater or lesser proportion of lead than Roman ones, but given the much greater numbers and large size even a small proportion would be competitive.

....did you read the articles at all?

Steel wrote:On the one hand we have wreck sites that will in all likelihood never be excavated by archaeologists, or at least not for centuries,

Wrong. It is not a question of "never excavated = useless" as some people try to make this out to be. Most "excavation these days is done by photos because it turns out that items are in general much better preserved if we keep them in the ground. Case in point - Vasa now suffers a lot of damage and problems simply because we raised her without knowing the conversation issues. It might actually have been better to let her stay on the bottom.

and if they were we would have the potential to obtain... a marginal improvement in after dinner conversation? (Please cite a single instance of an archaeological find beating modern science in the last 50 years.)

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=158782
You lose.

But again, you try to make this into a "science = best" argument. When it is not. Our culture is enriched by more things than science. Even if it would just give us a marginally better understanding of Roman culture then it still is worthwhile.

On the other hand, can you calculate the number of deaths that would have come from not having any one of MRI/PET/CT scans for an extra decade? Because they all came out of fundamental physics research like the experiments you want to destroy. (You can say this time is different, and we've reached the end of science, but history is littered with people who have made that statement as I'm sure you know.)

And history is also littered with people who destroyed cultural artifacts in favor of what they thought superior advancement. Look at those people and then think very hard and very long about how much you want to join them.

Of course the destruction of world heritage is not something that should be done lightly, but to pretend that purely cultural concerns outweigh the need for the advancement of our current society going into some of the toughest conditions humanity will ever have to face is to sacrifice the future. We must not become a dig site for someone else.

Oh please. Mankind will not die out if we don't destroy those wrecks right now.

Thanas wrote:Oh please. Mankind will not die out if we don't destroy those wrecks right now.

But Thanas, think about what that scientific research might bring us: maybe the universe isn't 13,8 billion years old, but 13,8001 billion years. Doesn't that blow your mind and change everything? And I'm sure that cures cancer.

I really don't see how 'don't steal lead from shipwrecks you cunts' translates to 'let's destroy these scientific experiments!', while we're on the subject. If they want the lead, we can put a system in place like the museum sales! It's not innately an 'either science OR history' - there is no reason except cost and slight delays that we can't satisfy the needs of both. Sending qualified divers down to very carefully remove the lead probably isn't ideal from a conservation perspective, I know, but since the advocates for SCIENCE! seem to think we should just fuck the wrecks and fuck history, it's a compromise.

Or we could just go the route the law provides and tell them to either buy it from museums or get lost.

Like I said, you can argue about the correctness of buying such goods, but it is not physicists who are stealing and destroying artefacts. There is enough to discuss here without making physicistsoutto be some history-destroying bogeymen.

Except that is exactly what they are. I have a precise analogue for you. If I am doing a study, and I need to procure a number of individuals of an endangered species, I am obligated to ensure that they were collected under permit, transported humanely, and then when the experiment is done that something is done with them that either preserves their life and breeding functionality or if that is not possible preserves them as proper museum specimens.

That is an obligation I have. If I fail to do those things, I am liable under the Lacey Act, as well as numerous other laws such as the ESA and Animal Welfare Acts. Criminally and Civilly liable. As in Prison + Massive fines. It does not matter whether I did the illegal capture and transport. It is a criminal conspiracy/illegal enterprise. Hell, it does not even matter if I had no idea the illegal acts were committed. Violations of the Lacey Act and ESA are strict liability offenses, no Mens Rea required. So unless I can prove I was the victim of outright fraud, I am guilty, because I had a legal and ethical duty to know my source.

The same is true here. It Does. Not. Matter if the physicists did not know. They are still guilty. For fuck's sake, if I went through a coral reef and broke it up into chunks in order to get at a shrimp or something I needed for research, even if it was not illegal, I would be nailed to the wall for research misconduct, and yes, I would be so nailed if I simply bought the shrimp from someone who did the same thing.

So shut the fuck up. You dont know how this works.

Then I apologise and will withdraw from the discussion.

Yep, I'm convinced. Everyone has a duty to ensure that they are not causing harm in the process of conducting their research. In this case there is a duty to ensure the lead is from a regulated, legal, supply.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Like I said, you can argue about the correctness of buying such goods, but it is not physicists who are stealing and destroying artefacts. There is enough to discuss here without making physicistsoutto be some history-destroying bogeymen.

Except that is exactly what they are. I have a precise analogue for you. If I am doing a study, and I need to procure a number of individuals of an endangered species, I am obligated to ensure that they were collected under permit, transported humanely, and then when the experiment is done that something is done with them that either preserves their life and breeding functionality or if that is not possible preserves them as proper museum specimens.

That is an obligation I have. If I fail to do those things, I am liable under the Lacey Act, as well as numerous other laws such as the ESA and Animal Welfare Acts. Criminally and Civilly liable. As in Prison + Massive fines. It does not matter whether I did the illegal capture and transport. It is a criminal conspiracy/illegal enterprise. Hell, it does not even matter if I had no idea the illegal acts were committed. Violations of the Lacey Act and ESA are strict liability offenses, no Mens Rea required. So unless I can prove I was the victim of outright fraud, I am guilty, because I had a legal and ethical duty to know my source.

The same is true here. It Does. Not. Matter if the physicists did not know. They are still guilty. For fuck's sake, if I went through a coral reef and broke it up into chunks in order to get at a shrimp or something I needed for research, even if it was not illegal, I would be nailed to the wall for research misconduct, and yes, I would be so nailed if I simply bought the shrimp from someone who did the same thing.

So shut the fuck up. You dont know how this works.

It is really even more simple than this. The scientists in question are really no different than the person who knowingly buys stolen property.

Alyrium beat me to it, but honestly given my experiences working with animals I am amazed that any scientists working through any university system could even acquire illegal material for their experiments. Nevermind endangered animals: the enormous numbers of hoops I had to go through to get six budgerigars (as in, pet store parakeets) for some psychoacoustic experiments was rigorous enough on its own. It involved months of bureaucracy and paperwork that went through a dozen organizations, both within the university and at the national oversight level, and I am certain background checks on both me and the pet store in question.

I mean, even if I WANTED to acquire the parakeets illegally the chances of me getting away with it would be slim barring a massive pre-planned scam. I can't believe the universities would let physicists get away with more for resource requisition - surely, at the very least the university bursar (or department head, or grant agency, depending on how their funding works) has some sort of standards/verification process.

The ethical issues regarding animals are a lot more obvious than those around Roman lead. I can easily see a lot of people responsible for funding see that the scientists have found a cheaper source of suitable lead and not even question it because they aren't in the habit of questioning the ethics behind buying metal.

Now the scientists, they have no excuse unless their supplier was actually lying about the source of the lead.

The ethical issues regarding animals are a lot more obvious than those around Roman lead. I can easily see a lot of people responsible for funding see that the scientists have found a cheaper source of suitable lead and not even question it because they aren't in the habit of questioning the ethics behind buying metal.

No. At least in the US, when you want to spend grant money over a certain amount, you have to go through a formal process of approval that can take weeks or even months. There is a certain amount of Due Diligence that goes into this, and the account controllers are also liable for what is purchased if that purchasing is illegal.