Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Junk Science Week...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31

    Re: Junk Science Week...

    Re: Junk Science Week...

    Originally posted by callee View Post
    callee will do, it's my screen name.


    It allows specialists in a field to verify that a given study is, in their professional opinion, up to snuff. It's the equivalent of having an engineer stamp your blueprints, or having the ESA approve your own home-wiring job.

    That is the argument I made, and I should point out that you haven't addressed it yet. In my own field, I know it is possible for someone to produce an argument that would sound great to a layperson or non-specialist, and would be very convincing to them, and yet it would nevertheless be false. I can tell that it is false, but that is because I have an expertise that comes form 20 years of graduate and professional study in that field. I can tell you that the argument is false, but I am limited in how much explanation I can give you, because you simply would not understand the full explanation -- it took me 20 years to get to the point where I understood it, so it would be a little bit insulting to think that you could understand it to the same degree after a few minutes of explanation, right? That is simply the reality of how expertise works. Our individualistic culture may rebel against that, but it is the reality nevertheless. You can read the website of the mayo clinic all you want, for example, but your own opinion is still not as good as that of your doctor's. Peer review allows experts to act as gate-keepers on behalf of the non-experts. If you want to remove yourself from that benefit, then go ahead, but the odds are you will be the worse for doing so.


    Listen, I responded here out of respect for you, but I won't be taking this thread any further. Have the last word if you like, but debating the value of peer review is, to me, only slightly more legitimate than debating where obama was born, and I'm just not willing to invest my time in that.
    Whether you or I get the last word is not particularly important to me.

    However, you may be more familiar with Peer Review from a social Science perspective. I am more familiar with the engineering and hard science side -- and the Theoretical Math side. (People may believe or disbelieve this all they wish -- it's of no concern to me.)

    One misconception you appear to have is regarding an engineering stamp. An engineering stamp had nothing to do with education btw as you can challenge the exams -- or at least you could for the longest time. I have not checked lately. I know this because a certain Dean of Engineering suggested I not bother with certain work and just challenge the exams...

    The engineering stamp is more of a membership in an exclusive society where you agree to meet and follow rigorous standards. First of all -- you are awarded the stamp after the ring, the internship (articling) and the membership in the society. To be an engineer is to be a member of a professional body. It has nothing to do with education per se -- although many argue that it does. I have helped articling students from time to time so I understand a bit about that process as well.

    If your airplane falls out of the sky, if your bridge collapses, or, if your mine shafts and adits collapse then of course you can kiss your certification and your stamp goodbye. In other words there are very real penalties if you affix your stamp to a set of faulty plans. If you flub a peer review -- either giving or receiving there are no penalties like losing your E&O insurance or your stamp. (E&O == Errors and Omissions)

    You can verify the information here should you wish to:
    http://www.peo.on.ca/

    It may have changed recently -- but that is of little interest to me as I have not done that type of work in Canada for over a decade.

    To ensure that everyone is certain. If you are an engineer you can stamp your own work. It has nothing to do with review.

    I am going to give a related example. An NI43101 is a documentary instrument used by Professional Geologists and Geological Engineers related to mineral exploration. The person who did the work and supervised others doing the work can sign that report as the Qualified Person. It is very similar to "The Stamp". It is not a review -- though in some companies it could be that one geologist would do the work and sign off -- then a second QP (Qualified Person) could sign as a check and balance and take responsibility. I work with a senior QP (executive and owners) on some projects. I assure you that a QP can perform and sign off the work and that it is accepted by other P. Geologists and P. Engs. (Geo) and The Stock Exchange as gospel. It had best be, or you lose your stamp. The QP's I work with are both engineers and PhD scientists. So I have familiarity with the Peer Review and professional review processes.

    Now, my personal experience is that I have participated in the Peer Review and stamping process for over 45 years. So, I have some understanding of the various processes.

    I have also participated with senior Ph D. scientists who believe that the only stuff worthy of publishing is "the junk science" -- the stuff they cannot patent and sell or develop. I have not counted to see if they form the majority -- but a quick mental summary tells me they form the majority.

    I will go so far as to say that much of the "junk work" can be foisted on Graduate Students -- some of whom realize what is going on and some who don't. The aware students view it as a rite of passage. I have never treated anyone that way. Far too many are treated that way -- it is the price of getting your supervisor to put his name on the first paper you push through peer review.

    Now as to trying to understand your explanation -- you are right -- it would take me more than a few minutes to unravel why our perspectives are so different.

    The ideas you were criticizing -- were not mine -- though I do agree with Micahel Nielson. I think his assessment is accurate. You don't. I have to conclude that you have a different perspective.



    His Bio is here:
    http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/michael-a-nielsen/

    Here is an excerpt for those who do not wish to push the link...
    Michael Nielsen


    Scientific work

    My interest in open science grew out of my work as a scientist. In the 1990s and 2000s I helped pioneer the field of quantum computation. Together with Ike Chuang of MIT, I wrote the standard text on quantum computing. This is one of the ten most highly cited physics books of all time (Source: Google Scholar, March 2012). I’ve written more than fifty scientific papers, including invited contributions to Scientific American and Nature. My research contributions include the majorization theorem governing the manipulation of entangled quantum states, involvement in one of the first quantum teleportation experiments, named as one of Science Magazine’s Top Ten Breakthroughs of the Year for 1998, quantum gate teleportation, quantum process tomography, and critical contributions to the formula for the quantum channel capacity (1, 2, 3). A full list of papers is here.
    Education and Employment

    I was educated at the University of Queensland, and as a Fulbright Scholar in the group of Carl Caves at the University of New Mexico. I worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, at Caltech as the Richard Chace Tolman Prize Fellow, at the University of Queensland as Foundation Professor of Quantum Information Science and a Federation Fellow, and at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics as a Senior Faculty member. In 2008, I gave up my tenured academic position in order to write my book Reinventing Discovery.
    Last edited by willr; 06-19-2012, 03:50 PM. Reason: sp & formatting
    ---
    Will

    “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #32

      Re: Junk Science Week...

      Re: Junk Science Week...

      One of the issues raised above is serious enough that I will add this supplemental information -- since so many do not wish to follow links....

      http://www.peo.on.ca/
      (About section)
      What is a Professional Engineer?
      The practice of professional engineering is defined in Section 1 of the Professional Engineers Act and is comprised of three tests. Professional engineering is:
      1. any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising (or the managing of any such act);
      2. that requires the application of engineering principles; and
      3. concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment.
      If what you do meets all three tests, you are practising professional engineering and must be licensed by the association.

      Like medical and legal professionals, professional engineers are licensed to be accountable to the public for their work. Their duty is to safeguard life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment where engineering is concerned. Professional engineers subscribe to a strict code of ethics and practice standards. The practice of the profession is regulated by Professional Engineers Ontario.

      In Canada, the title "professional engineer" is restricted by law. In Ontario, only those individuals who have demonstrated that they possess the necessary qualifications and have been licensed by PEO can use the title, which is often abbreviated as "P.Eng."
      Note that some of the above should apply to climate science and the many claims -- but it does not. (IMO)


      The Stamp:
      Professional Engineer's Seal
      The Professional Engineers Act requires every holder of a licence, temporary licence, limited licence or provisional licence to have a seal issued by PEO denoting the type of licence held. The appearance of the seal has been altered from time to time. The current seal for professional engineers includes the holder’s licence number and identifies the holder as a “Licensed Professional Engineer.” Older seals did not include the licence number and may identify the holder as a “Registered Professional Engineer.” Any of these seals is acceptable.


      Seals for holders of temporary or limited licences differ in form from that of a professional engineer. These seals are rectangular and contain additional information. The limited licence seal includes a description of the holder’s allowed scope of practice. The seal provided to temporary licence holders includes the expiry date of the holder’s licence and the name of the Ontario professional engineer collaborating with the temporary licence holder.


      Section 53 of the act sets out the proper use of the seal. The seal must be signed and dated by the licence holder. Clients and other parties should not accept a document that has been sealed but has not been signed or dated.

      Affixing the seal on documents and drawings indicates the documents and drawings are final for the intended purpose and have been prepared by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practise professional engineering who is assuming responsibility for them. By sealing documents and drawings, licence holders acknowledge that they assume professional responsibility for the design, opinions, judgments or directions given in the documents and drawings. The seal is a "mark of reliance," indicating that a licence holder attests that other people can rely on the information provided in the documents and
      drawings.
      I hope people see the difference between a Peer Review approval and an engineers stamp.

      There is no analogy due to the issues of public liability.

      I will say that many people I know meet the 3 point test at the beginning but do not have a stamp.

      The main issue is of course the public accountability which is a legal issue of responsibility for your work, management and approvals.
      Last edited by willr; 06-19-2012, 05:05 PM. Reason: spelling, formatting and added
      ---
      Will

      “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #33

        Re: Junk Science Week...

        Re: Junk Science Week...

        The purpose of peer review is to assess the experimentation and determine whether or not the conclusions are justified given the data. That is all. The "peer" is supposedly someone that understands all aspects of the experimentation (this isn't always the case).
        Peer review is only one piece of the puzzle that determines the scientific validity of the findings. The actual value of the findings comes from long term follow-up experimentation (hopefully by additional scientists rather than only the one scientist). The people performing peer review (which is anonymous for the most part) are not culpable for findings that are considered "wrong".
        There has been recent chatter about opening up peer review to not be anonymous. This is more like the 'engineers stamp of approval'. I can tell you that people is science don't generally like this approach (myself included). If you send out a paper for review to three people and two come back with the stamp, and one doesn't, what do you do now?

        I can also tell you, historically, there was no peer review. Science was done by independently wealthy individuals that had the means to self publish their findings.
        -------
        Cheers,
        --Rick

        Comment


        • #34

          Re: Junk Science Week...

          Re: Junk Science Week...

          Here is one for the climatologists in the group:

          This conference is happening today, June 28, 2012: The phone number, and discussion number to listen in are included. Just follow directions below.

          PRESS ADVISORY: LEADING SCIENTISTS TO DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGE, HEAT WAVES AND WILDFIRES

          WHAT: As a heat wave sweeps across much of the country and wildfires rage in the West, many are wondering about the connection between these types of extreme weather events and climate change. Climate Communication has put together Heat Waves and Climate Change, a summary of the latest peer-reviewed literature on climate change and the recent increase in temperatures — a contributing factor to wildfires. Panelists on this call will discuss how climate change contributes to the extreme weather events unfolding now, their public health impacts and how similar risks could multiply in the future.
          WHEN: Thursday, June 28, 11 a.m. Eastern Time

          To call in and listen only, dial 1-855-244-8681. The event number is 660 341 332.

          WHO:
          Dr. Steven Running — Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, Dept. of Ecosystem Sciences, University of Montana
          Dr. Howard Frumkin — Dean, School of Public Health, Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington
          Dr. Michael Oppenheimer — Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University.
          Susan Joy Hassol, Director at Climate Communication, will moderate the panel
          Some facts from Heat Waves and Climate Change, which will be available tomorrow:
          • Since 1950 the number of heat waves worldwide has increased, and heat waves have become longer
          • In the past several years, the global area hit by extremely unusual hot temperatures has increased 50-fold
          • In the U.S., new record high temperatures now regularly outnumber new record lows by a ratio of 2:1; In 2012, the ratio for the year (through June 26) stands at more than 9:1.
          • In the U.S., the rise in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere has increased the probability of record-breaking temperatures 15-fold
          • If we continue business as usual, the same summertime temperatures that ranked among the top 5% in 1950–1979 will occur at least 70% of the time by 2035–2064 in the U.S.
          • By the end of this century, a once-every-20 year heat wave is projected to occur every other year

          So who figgers the claims are peer reviewed? Myself I am curious as to how a "once in 20 year event" can happen every two years. But then I am math challenged...

          From Here:
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/2...ping-tomorrow/

          Compare to this article:
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/2...ows-new-paper/

          During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
          Furthermore, when each storm’s intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.


          Note that the author of the last article is Dr. Ryan Maue:
          http://policlimate.com/tropical/index.html



          Sample Paper:
          http://policlimate.com/tropical/maue_grl_2009.pdf
          ---
          Will

          “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #35

            Re: Junk Science Week...

            Re: Junk Science Week...

            Nature weighs in on Junk Science....
            http://www.nature.com/news/open-your...esults-1.10895
            There is a compelling case for having open access to scientific papers, to enhance the efficacy and reach of scientific communication. But important though this is, the open-access debate has drawn attention away from a deeper issue that is at the heart of the scientific process: that of 'open data'. In an attempt to focus much-needed attention on this subject, I chaired a group that produced Science as an Open Enterprise, a policy report from the Royal Society in London, published last week.

            Open enquiry has been at the heart of science since the first scientific journals were printed in the seventeenth century. Publication of scientific theories — and the supporting experimental and observational data — permits others to identify errors, to reject or refine theories and to reuse data. Science's capacity for self-correction comes from this openness to scrutiny and challenge.

            Modern techniques to gather, store and manipulate data make this more difficult. In the 1980s, I published a paper that presented seven hard-won data points showing the relationship between stress and velocity beneath a glacier. Two years ago, I was involved in an analogous experiment on the Antarctic ice sheet that created more than a billion times more data points. No journal could publish these data, so for them to be accessible, the only option was to deposit the information in a recognized repository, complete with metadata (data about data), and to signpost it in published papers, preferably through live links in the papers' electronic versions.

            In the Royal Society report, we argue that this procedure must become the norm, required by journals and accepted by the scientific community as mandatory. As scientists, we have some way to go to achieve this. A recent study of the 50 highest-impact journals in biomedicine showed that only 22 required specific raw data to be made available as a condition of publication. Only 40% of papers fully adhered to the policy and only 9% had deposited the full raw data online (A. A. Alsheikh-Ali et al. PLoS ONE 6, e24357; 2011).

            ...

            There is, of course, a problem in making data sets open to non-specialists. They are rarely in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, an illusion under which many politicians labour in their laudable but problematic calls for open data. True openness requires data to be not only accessible, but also intelligible, assessable (who produced the data, what are their qualifications, do they have conflicts of interest?) and reusable.

            Everyone will benefit from a more open approach. The digital and communications revolutions bring opportunities for research that demand openness and a willingness to share data. These include the assembly of massive data sets from diverse sources, and linking them to allow data integration, dynamic updating and the manipulation of data within electronic publications. Such data-led science offers ways to explore massive data sets for patterns and relationships.


            Yet this, too, presents a problem. Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas. This cherry-picking is bad practice and should stop.


            For example, there is strong evidence that the partial reporting of the results of clinical trials, skewed towards those with positive outcomes, obscures relationships between cause and effect. We should publish all the data, and we should explore them not just for preconceived relationships, but also for unexpected ones. Without rigorous use and manipulation of data, science merely creates myths. At the same time, communications technologies are displacing the printed page from its dominant role as the medium of scientific communication. This is already exploiting the collective intelligence of the scientific community and shifting the social dynamic of research towards collaboration.
            The comment on Excel spreadsheets is telling.... So much of the scientific data sets that I have pulled over the last few years show any signs that the author understood how to manage large data sets and showed even less evidence of knowledge of normalization procedures. Suggesting that the people who audit and analyze data are at the level of spreadsheets is insulting at the least and ignorant at the worst.

            Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit weighed in recently on this discussion:
            http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/21/r...-data-sharing/
            The term “citizen scientist” is not a term that I use nor one that I like. In addition, most of the core Climate Audit commenters not only have formal training in statistics, but their formal training in statistics generally substantially exceeds that of the authors being criticized. The dispute is between formally trained statisticians and statistically-amateur and sometimes incompetent real_climate_scientists.
            Really! That does seem to be the issue.

            But one thing I do like is that the issue is now being discussed in a more even handed manner...

            Perhaps later I will dig out the words of the editor of Lancet...
            Last edited by willr; 06-28-2012, 11:19 AM.
            ---
            Will

            “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #36

              Re: Junk Science Week...

              Re: Junk Science Week...

              Will, when you refer to the Engineer's stamp in discussion #32, it is no longer just the Engineers, but the stamp of APEGM (in Manitoba) - the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba and similar organizations all across Canada. One needs be a member to work in the province or some sort of reciprocal arrangement to work in other provinces or for out of provincers to work here. If you are not a member - you don't work unless under the guidence of a qualified member. Students have a GIT classification or Geoscientist in Training. Geoscientists are bound by the same laws and constraints as the Engineers and that includes passing a series of qualification exams - unless granfathered in. Climatologists employed as Geoscientists are also members and therefore should be either "credible" or "prosecutable". I assume that this covers all/most(??) climatologists employed in Canadian Universities but I am not certain. World wide, I have no idea.

              I believe Prosecutable applies primarily to Engineers where a design or specifications may have been substandard resulting in great expense to correct or where injury might happen to a member of the general public as a result of his/her actions. Prosecution in the Geoscientist arena would probably stem from misrepresentation of a geological report - to the scale of the past BreX scandle. However, our APEGM can review members qualifications and actions and hold an internal review to recomment improvements or if dire enough suspend the member. Each member is required to constantly upgrade their qualifications and report their educational progress to the association.

              So, there is a big difference where Professional Geoscientists are bound by laws and regulations and "citizen scientists" who are members of the "I Believe - therefore it is" category and have no responsibilities to the general public or their clients.

              Data: It is wonderful that we can now gather copious quantities of data - your glacial stress example - but unless the data is gathered and recorded and processed identically to older or newer data, it is questionable or possibly useless to use for comparison from year to year or project to project. Many years ago I was involved in a sampling project. The first year the samples were collected by a different group and had nice gold showings. The next year, in an immediately adjacent area, 600 samples from metre deep pits (same sampling method both years) had no gold showings whatsoever - and this included overlap into the first area. The only answer seemed to be a change in the way the powder was generated or a change in the procedure at the lab. Whatever the cause, we learned that no matter how careful you are, combining data from various years and different areas can lead to bad conclusions.

              This shows up in the climate data where they ignored the fact that stations that were previously outside the city areas, 20 years later are now well inside the city area and naturally warmer - bad data - bad conclusion. Got to know and understand your data and try to discover WHAT actually changed.....

              And never forget that university departments that live and die by the grant, design studies to prove "certain" things and obtain grants to do so. But, at the end, how many claim their initial assumptions were wrong??? If they do, try getting another grant.

              While I'm on a rant: Computer Models - do we really know enough to design "adequate" models, let alone definitive ones. We can barely predict the weather from day to day because we don't really understand **ALL** the processes that are involved to generate it. Sometimes the farmer's almanac is more accurate than the weather dept. I'm not saying weather forcasters are bad or whatever, it is just that their task of prediction is so complicated.

              And, my greatest fear is that although we have a very poor understanding of all the climate processes - some government somewhere is going to try to modify the weather to "fix" a problem. Those rolling heat waves you mentioned above - when the central US farmers start screaming about the heat and lack of rain damaging their ethanol corn crops - and some elected official decides that perhaps they should divert some of that wet moist air rolling across Western Canada down to the central US - or perhaps increase snowfall in certain states that have low or depleted ground water - or whatever - what might be the long term effects - to us or them????

              If you think large scale weather modification is not possible, well, jump aboard the conspiracy express. In 2007 the CBC did a brodcast on the HAARP project up in Alaska. Although this is a "public" project, there are at least a few 600 page documents that describe it's use as a weapon, that have "this document does not exist" on the front of them. HAARP is a "PUBLIC" US Government research project consting of a large antenna array in a remote part of Alaska that is capable of discharging large amounts of energy into the upper ionosphere - where it presumably can alter weather patterns. It can also do a lot of other things - watch part one of the CBC video of the 2007 interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkLTzesBxGE

              Once there, you can also watch Part two - and a lot of other stuff. Warning, HAARP is a big target of the conspiracy crowd - but there might (??) be something to it.

              Enjoy
              Last edited by Glenn from Winnipeg; 06-28-2012, 08:01 PM. Reason: addition and errors - new keyboard
              Nothing is ever as straightforward as it seems.

              Glenn from Winnipeg

              Comment


              • #37

                Re: Junk Science Week...

                Re: Junk Science Week...

                Originally posted by willr View Post

                But did von Braun ever face peer review? I dunno.
                I'm sure if his peers disagreed with him he would have been made aware of their displeasure.

                Comment


                • #38

                  Re: Junk Science Week...

                  Re: Junk Science Week...

                  Originally posted by willr View Post
                  I will say that many people I know meet the 3 point test at the beginning but do not have a stamp.

                  The main issue is of course the public accountability which is a legal issue of responsibility for your work, management and approvals.
                  That's not really true. Every act of design that involves life safety IS designed by an engineer. In some cases the engineering is defined by prescriptive codes or the use of engineered designed products or systems, for example part 9 of the OBC or Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Work is done illegally and there may still be loopholes unforeseen by lawmakers but the intent is to leave all structural and mechanical design to the engineers

                  Comment


                  • #39

                    Re: Junk Science Week...

                    Re: Junk Science Week...

                    Never feed a stray dog...

                    Comment


                    • #40

                      Re: Junk Science Week...

                      Re: Junk Science Week...

                      Originally posted by dave_k View Post
                      That's not really true. Every act of design that involves life safety IS designed by an engineer. In some cases the engineering is defined by prescriptive codes or the use of engineered designed products or systems, for example part 9 of the OBC or Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Work is done illegally and there may still be loopholes unforeseen by lawmakers but the intent is to leave all structural and mechanical design to the engineers
                      Dave_K:

                      If you had said "Every act of design that involves life safety [SHOULD BE] designed by an engineer." I would have no argument. I know for a fact this is simply not true.

                      You are thinking of construction, and there are lots of other fields of engineering.

                      I agree with your sentiment of what should be. However the world does not run that smoothly.
                      ---
                      Will

                      “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • #41

                        Re: Junk Science Week...

                        Re: Junk Science Week...

                        Originally posted by J. Vibert View Post
                        Never feed a stray dog...
                        Comments like this are not helpful and are the type that start flame wars in the group. I would appreciate it if you would simply not make them.
                        ---
                        Will

                        “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #42

                          Re: Junk Science Week...

                          Re: Junk Science Week...

                          Originally posted by willr View Post
                          Dave_K:

                          I know for a fact this is simply not true.
                          Do you have examples?

                          Comment


                          • #43

                            Re: Junk Science Week...

                            Re: Junk Science Week...

                            Originally posted by dave_k View Post
                            Do you have examples?
                            I do. Not from Canada for obvious reasons. I don't need a perfectly competent person arrested for no reason.

                            Here is one:

                            I work with one person -- a company owner -- of a family company. They possess a grade Eight education. They also happen to be one of the best Mechanical "Engineers" I have ever worked with and regularly design machines for ore processing and mineral exploration. Even in the country where they work they are probability breaking enough laws to serve the rest of their life behind bars. However the work they do is exemplary in terms of working with what is available, and in terms of safety and worker management. They listen to the workers and modify and adapt till the machines work properly and are safe. They have a zero accident record over the last 15 years. They have zero tolerance for stupidity and unsafe operation -- or drug use. They have 100% tolerance for workers who object to unsafe conditions -- except in one instance -- if a worker sees and unsafe condition that is within their power to correct -- and they do not do so -- they will probably be looking for a new job -- on the instant.

                            The person certainly could not pass the P. Eng. exam in English or their native language. Their work falls under the three principles of the APEO. They have public liability and safety issues and are responsible for worker safety. I would be pleased to do more work for this person due to their care and attention to detail -- legal or not.
                            ---
                            Will

                            “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X